START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rant

14 States that hate the Constitution and are proud of it...

Posted 16 months ago|21 comments|507 views
Written by
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah...

These states all have something in common and are damn proud of it: They all hate the Constitution, and in turn hate America. These states are going to challenge that the 14th Amendment should, essentially, be ignored in the case of the children of illegal (specifically Mexican) immigrants. These states have decided that they are willing to commit, what in my opinion could be equated to treason, and claim that the the parts of the Constitution that they don't like should simply be ignored (this is typical among the right wing whackjobs in this country, just ask Sarah Palin).

They are claiming that the original intent of the 14th is to provide freed slaves with citizenship. Lets take a look at the text of the 14th:

"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."

Now, from my reading of this pretty straight forward statement, which is written in English, it says ALL PERSONS who are BORN IN THE UNITED STATES ARE CITIZENS. Now I'm not sure what part of this is difficult for the right wingers to figure out but its pretty straight forward.

Every single one of these treasonous state officials that is perusing this should be removed from office immediately as they are sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, yet the only thing they are projecting is their hatred.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
16 months ago: I agree that the Constitution should be upheld, as written. (I also believe it's time to rewrite the 14th.) No one with any sanity could ever imagine that the 14th amendment was meant to be abused by illegal immigrants who come into our country illegally and immediately drop a kid just to guarantee their own immunity from deportation. Now, we can't in good conscience separate a child from its parents, but hey, their citizenship will still be here waiting for them when they get old enough to make it on their own.

Now that slavery is no longer an issue, we need to rewrite the 14th to state that any child born to parents that are here legally is automatically granted citizenship. All others need to go back home.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
16 months ago: OOTB...Anyone with any sanity would know that you don't know anything about the perspective and intent of people that are dead.

Having a child by no means grants the parents citizenship, and believe me, my mother works in a housing community, and they deport people who have had children here ALL THE TIME. Claiming that the 14th needs to be rewritten is simply a case of right wing whackjobs picking and choosing their way through the constitution to get what they want. These people that claim the 14th must be changed are the same people that lash out at anyone who mentions gun control because "The Constitution says I have the right to bear arms" and that means all arms (picture this being said by some hick in Alabama in the woods deer hunting with and assault rifle.) You cannot have it both ways, any attempt to pick through the Constitution and choose which amendments you like and don't like is simply a case of hatred towards America, the Constitution is one document, you get the whole thing and just have to deal with it.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
16 months ago: Ok, then, let's just do away with all of the amendments. The 14th was ratified in 1868, nearly 100 years after the original Constitution. If they couldn't accept the Constitution the way it was without changing it, then they were unpatriotic and hated America and freedom, according to your logic. Forget the fact that things change, and amendments are added and repealed as needed. I believe there was an 18th amendment too. Were the people against that amendment, in your opinion, unpatriotic America haters also?

Only an idiot would try to pretend that the 14th amendment was not specifically aimed at granting full rights as citizens to freedmen and their children. That's why the southern states were required to ratify it before being allowed to rejoin the Union.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
16 months ago: What I am saying is that right wingers have a bad habit of picking and choosing their way through the Constitution like they are on some messed up version of "Lets make a Deal".

Right wingers typically display a somewhat twisted type of hatred towards "illegal" (really just Mexican) immigrants. This being the case they feel the need to try and overturn an amendment that lashes out at children (who by the way, didn't really pick where they were born). The language of the 14th is pretty clear...if you were born here, you are a citizen (and while this may apply to some slaves, many slaves were also born in...you know...Africa).

"Things change".
True...but that doesn't seem to bother the same right wing whackjobs when it comes to gun control (They didn't have assault rifles in the 1700's)...but try to change/pass any sort of gun control laws and "the evil "lib'rals" are tryin to take my guuunss" is all you will hear. It's typical right wing hypocrisy.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
16 months ago: "..."illegal" (really just Mexican) immigrants...."

That would be the group that upwards of 20 million have sneaked in illegally?
If any other nationality, whether it be Irish, English, or space alien had invaded on the same scale, it would be the same. If you will notice, the rhetoric uses the term "illegal aliens", not "Mexicans". It's not the right's fault that the term "illegal alien" conjures up the image of a Mexican in your mind.

"...many slaves were also born in...you know...Africa..."

...and they were brought here legally. They didn't sneak across the border in the dark of night to try to get a job being a slave on massah's plantation. They didn't get here and know that all they had to do was have a kid on American soil, and the bleeding hearts would let them stay "for the sake of the children".

"...but try to change/pass any sort of gun control laws and "the evil "lib'rals" are tryin to take my guuunss" is all you will hear...."

Now who is picking and choosing what parts of the constitution they like and don't like? Besides, we need our assault rifles to protect ourselves from any future despotic government, and if need be, to revolt and overthrow such government. It is our duty as Americans to remain prepared and vigilant.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
16 months ago: #1: There should be no such thing as an "illegal immigrant", the very concept would make every single person who lives in the United States an "illegal"...with the exception of the people that were systematically exterminated by the settlers and are now forced to live on reservations.

#2: The legality of the slave trade is only legal in the direction of America out...for the African slaves they were kidnapped, assaulted, raped, and abused.

#3: I'm not picking any parts, I never said that I believed that there should be stricter gun controls. I am saying that conservative nutjobs that want to change the 14th have coronaries over the thought of changing the 2nd...once again...typically conservative, right wing hypocrisy.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
16 months ago: #1 You are kidding, right? You think we should just open the doors and allow everyone in the world to move here that wants to? And because they cannot speak English, or get a decent job, you think America should foot the bill for their children's education and medical expenses? You should set the example by donating all your wages to UNICEEF.

Actually, the concept of "illegal alien" began when the country was formed. There were no illegal aliens before the birth of the United States, because there was no law against it. Now there is.

Are you against all laws, or just the ones you don't agree with?
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
16 months ago: #1: I'm not kidding, I think that the process for citizenship should take about 1 day.

Almost all of the children of immigrants that I have met speak nearly perfect English (unless you count an accent as not being able to speak). They attend public school, which is provided for all children. As for the parents, most of the "illegal immigrants" I know of work very hard and pay their bills on time, which is a lot more than I can say about some of the white people that live near me...and a hell of a lot more than I can say about the white people that I have seen in the backwoods of Kentucky.

According to British/American laws there were not "illegal" aliens...go ask an American Indian/Native American about that law and I think you may get a different response.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
16 months ago: And I'm only against hypocritical laws or laws that are Unconstitutional.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
16 months ago: Almost all the children of illegal immigrants I know require a special liaison in school to translate for them and their parents. They require Spanish speaking tutors to try to improve their English to a functional level. Their parents work off the books, and send large sums of pooled money back to Mexico. They have networks of immigrants' rights personnel who pay their fines if they get caught driving without a license, (which they cannot legally have).

The fact of the matter is, the people are here ILLEGALLY. Just because they have a kid here does not excuse them from breaking the law. They should be sent to their home country, where they can apply for citizenship properly. If you want to hurry up the naturalization process and loosen the immigration quotas, then by all means, make your case to the public.

But the immigration laws themselves are in no way unconstitutional. Would you disagree?
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
16 months ago: That's not surprising (assuming you are in fact from the South), but here in Chicago nearly ALL the children of "illegal" immigrants speak perfect English by the time they finish Kindergarten.

Is the fact that, say farmers in Nebraska, choose to pay the migrant workers in cash at a rate much lower than minimum wage the fault of the immigrants? No, they take the money they can earn because it is more than $0.00/hour. The fault for this phenomenon is the fault of the people who choose to abuse a system so they can pay less taxes (and before we go there, yes the immigrants workers don't pay income tax but they do pay sales tax) and in turn make more profits.

I agree that they are here illegally. I also agree that the Federal immigration laws are in-fact Constitutional. The Nazi inspired laws that Arizona attempted to implement were not.

It is also unConstitutional to try and claim that children born in the United States are not citizens. It is clearly stated in the Constitution that they are Natural Born Citizens of the United States of America. The fact that you right wingers don't like this doesn't change the fact that it is true. Further, it does not make the parents citizens, and as I have said, I have witnessed people deported that have children that are citizens.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
16 months ago: Of course there is always this:

http://www.tooshocking.com/videos/2048/F...
16 months ago: Damn right. I say ship them all by bus to Chicago and drop them off there with 5 bucks and a Taco Cabana coupon and a load of diapers (non-disposable). That way at least PH will know where all of his compadres are... since they will receive section 8 housing which he hates because he had to move from Chicago "proper" due to not getting his fair share of it. Shoot. Poor PH. Maybe he could setup a discount government subsidized laundry to wash the diapers. Maybe employ a few of his compadres while he is at it.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
16 months ago: PH,
Nobody is "picking and choosing their way through the Constitution like they are on some messed up version of 'Lets make a Deal'." What we ARE doing is interpreting it as the framers SAID IN WRITING it meant (ever heard of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers). As for the 14th amendment, the transcripts of the deliberations of both houses (and very likely of all the legislatures of all the states at the time) are available so we can know their minds pretty well also.

You are leaving out a very important part of the language in the 14th Amendment. According to you
ALL PERSONS who are BORN IN THE UNITED STATES ARE CITIZENS
but you are leaving out 6 extremely important words, to wit
AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF
(emphasis mine, BC)

The first sentence of the 14 begins with
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

"Wait a minute!" you say. "Anyone living here is 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States"

Sorry, friend, but that is not so. Diplomats (and their dependents) are most certainly not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. How could someone who comes here in a manner contradictory to the law of the land possibly be considered to have subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the U.S.?

To the best of my knowledge, in no other nation on earth does merely being born in a country bestow citizenship. Why should we be different? I guarantee that my daughter, born in Tokyo to an American citizen, is in no wise considered by Japan to be a Japanese citizen - despite the fact that she was born in Tokyo and is of 100% Japanese descent.

(continued below)
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
16 months ago: What you're really so incensed about is the concept of "anchor babies".

I found some interesting information here:http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

Here are some of the main points.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"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."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
16 months ago: 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."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. 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.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
16 months ago: 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. 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). 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.
16 months ago: Might want to read this one.

http://www.aztlan.net/dualcit.htm
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
16 months ago: That whole Aztlan thing is utter nonsense. I can guarantee that this old 3rd generation Texan is not going to meekly submit to having my home state given to that banana republic on the other side of the Rio Bravo.


Bad Cyborg X%-er
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
16 months ago: I think the US has provisions for dual nationality too. How does this one stack up against ours?
16 months ago: Pregnant women get arrested all the time. Where do their children grow up? In a similar manner illegal parents of American children should be returned to their country of origin and their American children should be allowed to be raised in America. Of course this does mean that if they have no American family that they might become wards of the state and potential burdens to society. But it beats the alternative. Doesn't it? Let's see! Let the child be raised by her parents here in the US while the mom and dad are given conditional citizenship until the child becomes an adult? Hmm?

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave