scarecrow cow: blog 
scarecrow cow's blog
what do you call a baby?
Published Jul. 23, 2008
WRAL.com's comment filters would not let me say that if an illegal has a [look at picture] baby they should not get special treatment because other criminals (murders, rapists, etc.) don't stay out of jail just because they have kids and home and don't want to be seperated.
Why filter that word? I've never, ever heard children that illegal immigrants have in hopes that they won't get deported because they now have an American-born baby refered to as anything else. I fully suspect the policy is not to prevent racism but to stifle discusion on an important issue. Ignoring the fact that illegals come over here and have children in order not to get deported does not change the fact that they do it. This term is used everywhere in all media and this is the first time I've seen it filtered.
So what word do I use instead? Is there another term for them at all?
close41 Comments
(1 votes) plensa sculpture shines in durham
Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
Congress doesn't have the ability to remove the court's jurisdiction over constitutional matters. That power is reserved to them by the Constitution itself. Furthermore, Congress can not pass legislation limiting constitutionally granted rights.
What is interesting is that the specific purpose of that clause was to place the dictates of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 beyond the reach of either the Supreme Court (by ruling that Congress had acted beyond its authority in passing it) or a future Congress from repealing it through a simple majority vote. Had their intention been only to retroactively grant slaves citizenship, the act wouldn't have broadly defined the class as persons "of every race and color."
Perhaps the 14th amendment is too broadly constructed in its wording, but nonetheless, it is the law.
GOLO member since July 4, 2008
July 23, 2008 7:44 p.m.
Incorrect. Native Americans were by law not subject to state or federal jurisdiction, as their situations were viewed to be their own sovereign entities. They were granted citizenship prior to 1924 through a combination of marriage, military service, allotments, treaties or special laws relevant to specific groupings. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 finally granted them status through US birth, but they were specifically exempted from the automatic grant conferred through the 14th Amendment. Their citizenship is the product of federal legislation, not constitutional grant.
Regarding illegal aliens, yes. Their children born here are US citizens. They, however, are not.
GOLO member since July 4, 2008
July 23, 2008 7:30 p.m.
GOLO member since July 26, 2007
July 23, 2008 6:28 p.m.
GOLO member since July 3, 2007
July 23, 2008 5:21 p.m.
Understanding the ratifiers' intentions for this amendment would determine the correctness of interpretation, much like in the 1884 Elk ruling. The determination that you've summarized would make Indians and illegal aliens citizens, when they clearly are not; an unfortunate byproduct of the 1898 Ark ruling.
But, it doesn't matter, Congress no longer has the will nor ability to clarify this for the diversity-driven courts.
GOLO member since July 25, 2007
July 23, 2008 4:16 p.m.
July 23, 2008 4:08 p.m.
July 23, 2008 4:03 p.m.
GOLO member since July 2, 2007
July 23, 2008 4:00 p.m.
July 23, 2008 3:52 p.m.
What determines the correctness of a constitutional interpretation? The justices are the final word on what the verbage in the constitution means, and they've already determined that "subject to the jurisdiction of" includes anyone subject to the authority of the law within the US. Outside of diplomats, that includes just about everybody else.
GOLO member since July 4, 2008
July 23, 2008 3:42 p.m.
Please log in to add comment.