Thread: Amend the Constitution NOW!!

Perhaps the amendment (14th?) should be clarified somehow by new, more explicit language or a Supreme Court case or something?

Perhaps the amendment (14th?) should be clarified somehow by new, more explicit language or a Supreme Court case or something?

Heaven forbid! Then they couldn't hide behind that cloak of ambiguity! ::::::hurl:::::::

Originally Posted by RoadRunner

Federall...I don't believe the constitution permits either the pres or the congress to grant amnesty to invaders. We don't need a new 'amendment', we need new LEADERS.

The language barrier here is that US citizens call these illegals 'invaders' and the congress calls them 'undocumented workers'.

The people are right...and they stand staunchly behind their opinions at about 84%....some say 90%.

The congress goes blithely on, ignoring the will of the people.

They should face a firing squad. That's what happened to traitors 100 years ago...we should reinstitute that rather than merely voting them out of office. But we've lost our sense of outrage in this country. With the pc stuff...we wander around bewildered...too many have been taught that to 'make judgments' about anything is WRONG. Interesting, huh?

If you can't make judgments you wouldn't know the difference between the wall and the floor...STOP listening to government. WE must make the government listen to US.

RR

I've been preaching this same sermon for over a year, thought y'all got tired of hearing it --- these are STATE'S RIGHTS' issues NOT immigration reform issues. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR GOVERNOR


We have 'immigration' laws, we just don't have a Congress or President to enforce the law

IF these illegals had homes, automobiles, bank accounts, etc. that could be seized for 'illegal immigration' they'd be all over them like white on rice

We need leaders that will ENFORCE the laws already on the books, instead of CHANGING the laws to accomodate 12 million or more illegal imigrants !

And we definately need to CHANGE THE LAWS FOR ANCHOR BABIES!

Originally Posted by Americans1st

We need leaders that will ENFORCE the laws already on the books, instead of CHANGING the laws to accomodate 12 million or more illegal imigrants !

And we definately need to CHANGE THE LAWS FOR ANCHOR BABIES!

actually, the 'law' was fine -- it's the ignorance of those in charge . . The 14th amendment was for one purpose and one purpose only -- to make citizens of the newly freed slaves BECAUSE they did not qualify for naturalization under the laws of the United States because they were BORN here. This is set out in Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (189 the Supreme Court held

"the opening sentence of the fourteenth [169 U.S. 649, 688] amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship. . . 'within the meaning of the civil rights act of 1866; and in an opinion delivered by Justice Van Syckel, with the concurrence of Chief Justice Beasley, said The object of the fourteenth amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship."

Everybody claims the 14th amendment says "person" and not "citizen" therefore, EVERYONE born IN the United States is a 'citizen.' This defies common sense.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, there were only citizens of the states, not citizens of the United States. And a provision to guarantee "All citizens 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" or "All citizens born or naturalized in the states, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside" would have defeated the purpose and excluded the newly freed slaves, because they were ‘persons' and not ‘citizens' of the states.

Clearly, the fourteenth amendment does not support the right of automatic citizenship to aliens born to aliens or ‘anchor babies.' The Supreme Court held in Elk V. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) that the fourteenth amendment required more than "physical location"

"This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations."

Nonetheless, had the amendment intended to include all children born to aliens and Indians, they would not have restricted citizenship to persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' they could simply have said "All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside"

If the 14th Amendment had just guaranteed all freed slaves and the children born to, could become naturalized citizens in the states where they resided, we wouldn't be having such problems with anchor babies.

IF these illegals had homes, automobiles, bank accounts, etc. that could be seized for 'illegal immigration' they'd be all over them like white on rice

This just made me think of something. Is anyone around here other than me old enough to remember 1979. Iran was holding a whole bunch of Americans hostage because the Ayatollah Khoumeini organized a band of murderers to take over Iran in the name of Islam.

At that time, I owned a little restaurant in a college town in North Carolina. There were several Iranian students in the college at that time. The US gov't froze their bank accounts, even though they were legally here as students.

Why can't the federal gov't seize the assets of illegal aliens? This makes no sense to me. Because they DO have cars and they DO have bank accounts-- some even are buying houses.

The Government will have the right to seize the business of anyone caught hiring Illegals 3 times. 3 strikes and you're out, baby!

Originally Posted by Federali

The Government will have the right to seize the business of anyone caught hiring Illegals 3 times. 3 strikes and you're out, baby!

is this under the house bill or the senate bill?

Another thing that states can do is this: if an illegal alien causes bodily harm to any citizen of the state, the state could also impose criminal charges against anyone that aids and abets -- providing employment, housing, etc.

Originally Posted by Federali

Only way we can solve this problem in the long run is to Amend the Constitution.

I. Denying citizenship to Illegals and their "anchor babies." So, No Illegals can ever become Citizen in our Country, nor their anchor babies.

An amendment is not needed to do this, all that is needed is for Congress to pass a law or the President to issue an executive order (anchor babies anyway).

Of course first we will need to kick the Globalists out for thia to happen.

Originally Posted by JuniusJnr

IF these illegals had homes, automobiles, bank accounts, etc. that could be seized for 'illegal immigration' they'd be all over them like white on rice

This just made me think of something. Is anyone around here other than me old enough to remember 1979. Iran was holding a whole bunch of Americans hostage because the Ayatollah Khoumeini organized a band of murderers to take over Iran in the name of Islam.

At that time, I owned a little restaurant in a college town in North Carolina. There were several Iranian students in the college at that time. The US gov't froze their bank accounts, even though they were legally here as students.

Why can't the federal gov't seize the assets of illegal aliens? This makes no sense to me. Because they DO have cars and they DO have bank accounts-- some even are buying houses.

One of the members here, Ayatollah Gondola found out recently he owns 3 houses that illegals are living in. They picked his Hispanic Name and information to use.