- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Angry immigration debate doesn’t address the problem

Published: Tue, August 3, 2010 @ 12:00 a.m.

It isn’t surprising that Congress will be going on August recess without having tackled the emotionally charged issue of immigration reform. After all, President Obama indicated early on that he would not push for a comprehensive bill this year.

In May, we said the president’s decision was ill-advised because it would result in Arizona’s controversial law targeting illegal immigrants sparking a national debate that would be superficial at best, and political at worst. And that’s exactly what has happened.

Republicans looking at public opinion polls see immigration as an issue that will enable them to regain the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives which they lost to the Democrats in 2006. That is why they dismiss any talk of comprehensive immigration reform. Asked if it’s time for Congress to act, GOP leaders insisted that before there is any legislative initiative, the border between Mexico and the United States must be secured.

The problem is they don’t specify how this security is to be accomplished within a reasonable period. One of the ideas that seems to appeal to an increasing number of Americans who are looking for simplistic solutions is to assign National Guard or other military units to border patrol.

We reiterate our position that if there’s a need for more agents patrolling the southern border or the northern border, the federal government should hire and train them.

They would have been in place by now had Congress done the right thing three years ago and passed the immigration reform bill pushed by then Republican President George W. Bush and supported by most Democrats in Congress.

However, Republicans and enough Democrats opposed the bill and it died. Had it become law, there would have been $4.4 billion in immediate additional funding for securing our borders and enforcing our laws at work sites.

But opponents succeeded in characterizing the initiative as an “amnesty bill” and were able to block passage.

Thus today, Arizona and other states are taking the law into their own hands. But immigration is a federal issue that must be addressed by Washington. A state-by-state approach to dealing with the influx of illegal aliens is a recipe for disaster. In addition to which, such initiatives do not address the issue of the 12 million illegals already in this country.

Last week, a federal appeals court decided not to step into the controversy over Arizona’s tough immigration law until November, leaving state officials to consider other steps they might take in the meantime.

Tweaking the law

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law and appealed a ruling blocking its most controversial sections, said Friday she would consider changes to “tweak” the law to respond to the parts U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton faulted.

In her temporary injunction Wednesday, Judge Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws. Bolton indicated the federal government’s case has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration law trumps state law.

The legal battles will continue, the politics of immigration will keep dividing the nation, and no substantive changes will be made.

Members of Congress who will be spending the next month or so in their home states and districts, if they aren’t on junkets, need to hear from their constituents — that the time for comprehensive immigration reform is long overdue.


11970mach1(1005 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

What planet are you on?!?!? The problem is the tens of millions of illegals here and they are joined by thousands more every day.

You know why the bill was characterized as an "amnesty bill"? Because it IS an amnesty bill.

You are are correct, the federal govt. should be enforcing the laws, but it isn't. THAT is why the AZ law was enacted.

Suggest removal:

2cambridge(3920 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

Securing our borders is a must but it will not correct the problem. People can still enter the US legally on work, student and tourist visas and not leave when the visa expires. The link below shows the results form a 2006 study where 45% of the illegals were here on visa overstays.

Until those that employ illegals are prosecuted illegals will find a way to enter the country for those jobs.


Suggest removal:

3Cowboyfan(105 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

Dems keep saying repub didn't do anything either. Wasn't there a fence being built?

Suggest removal:

4piak(508 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

The whole article sounds like pleading the Democratic Party cause in this issue.
It's almost like the Vindicator is an organ of the Democrat party.

One party rule in this valley is one big part of why it will keep sinking. Aiding and abetting one party rule is reprehensible at the least. While the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of speech, it doesn't shut out the other side of the story from being told.

Obama must love you guys.

Suggest removal:

5Silence_Dogood(1656 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

"It's almost like the Vindicator is an organ of the Democrat party."


Suggest removal:

6Jerry(811 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

Back to my previous comments:

The whole argument can be resolved by finding the political will to enact appropriate reform of immigration policy based on four completely reasonable principles that eliminate the benefits of being in the USA illegaly; something the previous inappropriate proposals did not provide.

First, application for legal entry into the United States is something that is ALWAYS done from outside the United States or while visiting the United States legally. No person who is in the United States in violation of immigration law should ever be granted legal status without leaving and then applying for legal re-entry from the outside via the appropriate and legal procedures.

Second, any person who has violated immigration laws of the United States and who is caught in the United States illegally must be deported and FOREVER BARRED from re-entry. There can be no exceptions. This does not mean the United States must engage in “round-ups” or “mass deportations”, it just means that illegal aliens must be deported as they are caught.

Third, any reformed immigration policy must absolutely recognize that NO person who is in the United State illegally is entitled to ANY benefits or services supported by public funds; and that identification and proof of legal status is an absolute requirement for application for any such benefits and services. This does not imply that emergency services and emergency healthcare should be withheld; however, once the emergency situation is resolved, deportation of persons here illegally must follow.

Fourth, the privilege of citizenship and legal residency can no-longer be granted to children born in the United States when the mother is not authorized to be here legally under the jurisdiction of the United States. These children are here as illegally as the mother, and barring them does not conflict with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Once these four principles are accepted and border security is enhanced, we can discuss any other reasonable reforms to facilitate the legal application process. We can discuss and implement laws allowing more legal entries. We can discuss and implement making requirements less stringent. We can discuss and implement streamlining the path to permanent residency and/or citizenship. We can discuss and implement a controlled and legal guest or migratory worker program. We can discuss and implement tougher enforcement and consequences for employers who employ illegal aliens. We can discuss any reasonable reforms, as long as it is recognized that the United States has an absolute right to protect its borders and control entry of any and all persons from other areas of the world. What we can not have is any law which provides any incentive to enter or remain in the United States illegally, or which provides any hope that by entering or remaining here illegally there will be a path to permanent residence or citizenship.

Suggest removal:

7dreamcatcher52(140 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

Jerry has it exactly right. Especially the 14th amendment point. If a woman comes into this country illegally, especially if she is already pregnant, (in which case she and her unborn child are both here illegally), then the 14th amendment does not apply.

Suggest removal:

8piak(508 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

Jerry: Well written, cogent and really ready for enactment by a party with the guts to do it.

I hope this gets passed in January 2012.
If the Dalai Bama vetoes it, that legislation should cross his desk as part of every piece of legislation until the "organizer" gets it together and signs it.

Suggest removal:

9Silence_Dogood(1656 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

If you are born in America then you are an AMERICAN. I don't give a rats ass what your parents did or did not do in regards to the law, if you breathed your first breath here, it is your RIGHT to stay here untill you breathe your last breath.No one has a right to deport you if your parents came to this Country illegallly, NO ONE.Not even the xenophobic Jerry

Suggest removal:

10Silence_Dogood(1656 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

14th Amendment

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Jerry this is the 14th in it's final form, do me a favor and reread the first sentence of section 1.

Suggest removal:

11Jerry(811 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

Apparently, NO ONE has the right to disagree with Silence_Dogood; and if they do, the smearing with derogatory terms will commence.

I have read the 14th Amendment (thank you Silence), and I realize that there are varying opinions regarding interpretation. I have stated mine, which I believe is in keeping with the intentions of the framers of the amendment, who had no intention of addressing the subject of illegal aliens. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions are sometimes cited as affirming the current interpretation of the amendment; however, these cases can be questioned as well. In US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) the matter of legal or illegal status of the immigrant parents was not the issue, and in the more recent case of Plyler v. Doe (1982) there was a 5-4 split decision with significant dissent and reason to consider reversal.

I stand by my opinion that people here illegally can not be considered UNDER THE JURISDICTION of the United States, and therefore the citizenship clause does not apply to their children. Please note that I am saying nothing about the children of immigrants or visitors here legally, who are UNDER THE JURISDICTION of the United States, and whose children born here would be citizens.

Others may disagree; that is why we have an elected legislative branch and a system of courts.

Of course, Silence feels justified in dismissing any differing opinions like these, because they can be wiped away by smearing my character with terms like xenophobic. I would invite Silence to re-read the last paragraph of my original comment, regarding easing restrictions of legal immigration, streamlining the legal path to citizenship, allowing more legal immigrants into the US, and setting up a legal guest worker program. Do those comments seem xenophobic?

Suggest removal:

12Silence_Dogood(1656 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

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.

How can you twist these words to a point that someone born here is NOT a citizen.

Suggest removal:

13Silence_Dogood(1656 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

And Jerry I am not "dismissing any differing opinions ", I am more DISMAYED at how someone can missread one simple sentence.

Suggest removal:

14Silence_Dogood(1656 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

All persons born or naturalized in the United States(unless they have brown skin, with the exception of a well tanned red head from Boston), and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Suggest removal:

15WarrenRicheyKid(169 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

I'll bet most of the people complaining about "illegals" here are grandchildren of immigrants who were not citizens at the time they gave birth. I'm Italian American and neither of my grandmothers was a citizen when she gave birth. That would have made my parents stateless people, if the birthers had had their way.

This reincarnation of the birther movement is created to sway votes in November. Remember, in 2004, it was gay marriage that the GOP used to scare voters.

Suggest removal:

16Silence_Dogood(1656 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

During the debate in the Senate to vote on the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Conness from California, spoke on May 30, 1866, and remarked: The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. In an exchange between the Senators Cowan and Trumbull regarding the citizenship status of children of Chinese and Gypsies in the proposed Amendment, the following dialogue occurred: Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked “whether It will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, born in this country?” Mr. Trumbull answered. “Undoubtedly;” and asked, “Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?” Mr. Cowan replied, “The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese.” Mr. Trumbull rejoined, “The law makes no such distinction, and the child of an Asiatic is Just as much a citizen as the child of a European.” As such, the Senators who drafted, debated and eventually voted for the 14th Amendment understood that the First Clause of the 14th Amendment wasn't restricted to children of the newly freed slaves but to all children born in the United States to alien parents.

Suggest removal:

17walter_sobchak(2587 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

In my opinion, your reading of the 14th amendment makes sense, but its not very palatable. The amendment was enacted to deal with the issue of slaves and the granting them citizenship. It could be argued, regretably, that they came to our shores and were purchased by citizens as property. But, the writers of the amendment clearly didn't think that just because you were on our soil that you automatically gained citizenship. The "jurisdiction" portion applies to diplomats and their children who were here for the purpose of conducting affairs of foreign sovereign governments. So, in my opinion, the framers didn't believe everyone gets automatic citizenship, but an argument must be made. Thus, I believe the Congress needs to explore this issue and, in my opinion, alter the Constitution (that most legal document, not a living breathing entity) to say that those persons who are born to non-American parents in our borders but do not have legal residency in this country are not granted citizenship. The anchor baby issue is killing the states in the southwest.

Suggest removal:

18cambridge(3920 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

It's amusing that the same people that point to the constitution as the end all for everything American want to rewrite it so it suits their personal views.

Suggest removal:

19Silence_Dogood(1656 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

"In my opinion, your reading of the 14th amendment makes sense, but its not very palatable."

You are right, it is not the least bit palatable, That is why we need to build that damn fence with all the associated sensors, and stop this human wave.As a Nation we have the right to control our border. The last thing we want to do though is to reinvent the constitution and start writing subsections to amendments for the purpose of denying someone their birthright.

Suggest removal:

20Jerry(811 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

Silence – I am also dismayed that you seem to ignore the words AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, and fail to recognize that people here illegally and without our knowledge can not be subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Somehow, however, I manage to disagree with you, and realize you disagree with me, without smearing your character. Unfortunately, you have now seen fit to twice denigrate me with baseless implications of xenophobia, racism, and bigotry.

Suggest removal:

21Jerry(811 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

to city_dweller:

Once again, you have presented the very words from the Supreme Court that destroy your argument; "The Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State." How can someone who is here illegally and without our knowledge, who is in the very process of defying the laws of the State, be considered to be SUBJECT to the laws of the State???

Why do you object to people interpreting the Constitution, other than simply because their interpretation is different than your interpretation? I would suggest that it is your interpretation that is a stretch.

And, once again, you throw out the baseless implication of racism and bigotry. Reasonable people are very much against illegal immigration and at the same time supportive of legal immigration, and this has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

Suggest removal:

22VINDYAK(1824 comments)posted 5 years, 9 months ago

The key word is "illegal".

If we solved the border crossing issue years ago, there would be no "anchor baby" issue to deal with now and we would not be attempting to re-write our Constitution.

The answer is simple. Secure our borders. That is all we ask.

Suggest removal:

23metrodawg(70 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

When there was no door, white people came to this country 100 miles an hour. They even brought people of color with them. Now, not only do they want to build a door, they want to lock it, and put a guard outside. I'll bet Europeans will still get the password! Hypocrites!

Suggest removal:

24Jerry(811 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

To metrodawg:

When the first settlers came to America, you are correct, there was no door. Also there were no cities, no highways, no health care, no food production, no assistance, and no safety net of any kind. Generations of immigrants (even some brought as slaves and indentured servants) worked endlessly, clawing tooth and nail, to build this nation into the greatest nation that has ever existed where 300+ million people now live; and untold millions died in the process.

Is it not a bit ridiculous to fail to recognize that the situation here and in the world has changed over the last 200-300 years, and that a door is now necessary??

All most of us ask is some legal control over who is entering and how they conduct themselves. From my comments above, once a few guiding principles are accepted, I am willing to discuss any other reasonable reforms that would facilitate the legal application process. We can discuss and implement laws allowing more legal entries. We can discuss and implement making requirements less stringent. We can discuss and implement streamlining the path to permanent residency and/or citizenship. We can discuss and implement a controlled and legal guest or migratory worker program. We can discuss and implement tougher enforcement and consequences for employers who employ illegal aliens. We can discuss any reasonable reforms, as long as it is recognized that the United States has an absolute right and duty to protect its borders and control entry of any and all persons from other areas of the world.

Lacking any real counter-arguments, however, you seem satisfied to hurl insults and implications of racism and bigotry.

Suggest removal:

25piak(508 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

We all know that letting in more Mexicans over the border and legalizing the "undocumented" or illegal immigrants is only for the benefit of one party. And the other party is either too stupid to understand this or it's too cowardly to oppose this.

If this is carried to it's conclusion, there will be only ONE ruling party. What the founding fathers wanted-will be gone. And it will all be done "legally".

With one dominant party, the suppression of the other one is a foregone conclusion. And it too will be done "legally".

The Supreme Court has already begun being "packed", something FDR tried and failed at. And it's all being done, "legally".

Amendment XXII, (Limiting Presidential Terms of Office) has been called by some zealots as un-necessary and ought to be repealed. (Amendment XXI REPEALED Prohibition, so repeal can happen.) Legally, naturally.

This business of who comes into our country, and HOW they come in along with for WHAT PURPOSE does matter!

I don't want a bunch of people running around here with NO ALLEGIANCE to THIS country, legal or illegal.

Suggest removal:

26metrodawg(70 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

To Jerry,
The first "settlers" to this country brought the need for the things you mentioned. The Native Americans were content in their lifestyle. And since they resisted the takeover of their land...well, they still live on reservations. And they don't all own casinos!

As far as racism is concerned, why are Europeans and Cubans allowed in, but Haitians and Mexicans are not? The whole idea of legal control is racist by nature.

America is what it is. So why do they come here. To get paid to do things we've become to lazy to do ourselves. Now that the economy has collapsed, we THINK we want those jobs back. We'll see how that plays out!

Suggest removal:

27Bigben(1996 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

Another vote in favor of borders.I can't see how Americans can be opposed to borders.Mind blowing.

Suggest removal:

28ront(119 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

have any of you in favor of interperting the 14th amendment allowing anyone born here automaticly being a citizen should look up the definition of jurisdiction.

two key words, authority and control.

can you honestly believe that the government has authority and control over illegal immigrants?

Suggest removal:

29300(573 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

Yes, the state does have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants. They can be arrested, charged with crimes, imprisoned, etc.

What the state doesn't have jurisdiction over are diplomats/heads of states/military attaches/etc. This is why their children can be born here, but aren't considered American by birth.

I think it's you who doesn't understand the term, and evidently can't understand complex definitions either.


Interesting how things never really change for the nativists out there.

Suggest removal:

30ront(119 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

some one who is illegal is only subject to government jurisdiction because they break our laws.

how does that translate into children born on us soil automaticly being us citizens?

Suggest removal:

31300(573 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

That first sentence doesn't even make sense, ront.

I just gave you a very clear example of people under the US's jurisdiction, and groups of people who aren't.

I'll reiterate. To be under a country's jurisdiction means that said country has the right to detain you subject to its laws. 99.999% of people in this country are subject to its jurisdiction. Only representatives of foreign states are excluded.

Another example, you're a resident of Ohio, subject to Ohio jurisdiction. You travel to Indiana, and while there, you're now under Indiana jurisdiction. Say, you commit a crime in Indiana, but flee back to Ohio. Indiana cannot enter Ohio and arrest you, they must go through Ohio jurisdiction because that's the state you're presently in.

I always assumed most people understood the word "jurisdiction", but I guess I was wrong after reading these comments.

Suggest removal:

32300(573 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

Very simply, illegal immigrants are under US jurisdiction because they are physically in American territory.

Suggest removal:

33300(573 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

An interesting hypothetical concerning jurisdiction.

An American woman voluntarily enters a car registered to the German Embassy in DC. While inside of the car, she gives birth to a child who is the product of 2 native-born Americans.

What is the baby?....stateless at that point, since German law is based on blood not territory. Technically, that baby was born under the jurisdiction of Germany, and for it to become American, the parents would have to register it with the US Embassy in Berlin (or one of the Consulates) as a foreign birth to American parentage for it be considered American.

A bit off topic, but it shows how jurisdiction works.

Suggest removal:

34ront(119 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago


true, a literal definition of jurisdiction

my question does have to do with the interpetation of jurisdiction in the 14th amendment. my understanding of the 14th amendmend dealt with people aready on us soil, specificly slaves.

maybe i interpeting it wrong.
interesting about the baby born in german owned car.

.carry it a little farther. a woman who is a citizen of another country, comes to us, has a baby. is the baby a citizen of the same country as the mother? if so, how could said baby be automaticly a us citizen?

true a literal interpetation of jurisdiction is how you put it.

Suggest removal:

35300(573 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

As long as that child isn't born to a woman married to a diplomat/etc., then under US law, it is automatically a US citizen. That's covered by the 14th amendment.

Other countries' constitutions/laws may be different, like Germany's. French law is similar to ours, but makes for exceptions. A tourist in Paris has a kid, it's not French. Same as for the UK. In Germany, things have changed a bit recently, but it had to do with ancestry. There were hundreds of thousands of 2nd/3rd generations born in Germany, but to Turkish ancestry parents who were denied German citizenship for decades. In my opinion, Germany was xenophobic, and certainly in no position after what it had done to have such a law, but it did.

We're largely better than those dead civilizations in that we don't base anything official on lineage or race. You can be white/black/asian/etc., and still be American. This is because our constitution allows for this, where others' had their own ethnic supremacy written into their laws.

We're better than them, and it has shown in our dynamism.

For a child born here to a foreign mother, she'd have to register her birth with her native country's Embassy for the child to gain the mother's citizenship. But, not all countries allow this. For most of history, the UK would not recognize the birth of a British woman abroad.

Once again, another reason that makes us better than most other countries.

Suggest removal:

36ront(119 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

this is where we disagree. the definition of jurisdiction and and the interpetation of it in the 14th amendmend.

how does this scenario sound: say you are walking on a sidewalk. three people abreast are walking towards you. they force you off the sidewalk because they have authority and control. does that make it right?

Suggest removal:

37ront(119 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

another thought occured to me. if one wants to use the literal interpetation of jurisdiction in the 14th amendment.
the illegals are breaking our laws. you claim we have jurisdiction over them.

why does not the government enforce the current laws and jail the illegals, or deport them ?

don't think i am against immigration. i am the grandson of immigrants. my father told me, when he started school, his mother told him, you will go to school, you will learn english. we are americans now.

Suggest removal:

38300(573 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago

Ront, this isn't about what sounds right or wrong, nor is it based on how we feel towards illegals.

Under the Constitution, this is a open and shut case, every child born to anyone under the jurisdiction of the US government (which illegals are) is granted US citizenship under the 14th amendment. That's the law.

Though I disagree with them, I can see how some would not like that law and wish to repeal it; but there is absolutely no legal argument or interpretation that would render illegals outside of US jurisdiction if they are presently, and physically, on US soil.

Understanding the amendment has nothing to do with "they need to speak english, they're not like my parents/grandparents who assimilated (which is nostalgic to the 9th degree, I know dozens of Italians who came over 60 years ago who can't speak passable English), etc"

Notice who in the media is pushing this idea, now find out if they're lawyers or if they're merely pundits. This is all about election politics, and playing the nationalism card to get the working class to vote against their economic interests.

Suggest removal:

39ront(119 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago


if all laws were open and shut, we wouldn't need the supreme court. it was the supreme court who interpeted the 14th amendment to what it is today.

all i'm saying, if one wants to literaly interpert the amendment, look at the original intent.

Suggest removal:

40ront(119 comments)posted 5 years, 8 months ago


it is probably true if not for the recession, we wouldn't be talking about this issue. even as serious as it is.

it also probably true, the democrats would like for all illegals to become citizens. i wish i could remember the name of one national democrat, who made reference to that. sure would help my arguement.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2016 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes