Speaking at a rally last week, Congressman Duncan Hunter said he didn’t intend to be mean but yes, he would deport American born children of illegal immigrants. It doesn’t sound like the Constitution means a great deal to Rep. Hunter. According to Huffingtonpost.com:
The San Diego-area Republican congressman spoke Saturday at a video recorded tea party rally in Ramona. Hunter was asked by someone in the crowd if he backed deporting natural-born American citizens who are the children of illegal immigrants.
“I would have to, yes,” Hunter said.
Hunter said in the video that some of his critics believe his stance is mean-spirited.
“And we’re not being mean. We’re just saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen,” he said. “It’s what’s in our souls.”
Perhaps if Rep. Hunter is going to be a congressman, he needs to uphold the Constitution. Is he planning on amending it? Being an American is in your soul? The 14th Amendment guarantees birth citizenship.
I think Hunter made the mistake of getting too simplistic in his answer to that question. Section 5 of Amendment XIV gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the article through appropriate legislation. There is currently a move in Congress to re-examine the granting of natural-born citizenship to children of illegal immigrants in our current and very controversial immigration situation. Theoretically then, I would suppose that Congress could legally change the rules using the power granted to it by the amendment itself. However, I doubt that, even if the rules were changed, this could be applied to the children already here and having natural-born citizenship. That sounds like an ex post facto thing to a layman like me, and I doubt the courts would ever buy into it.
Tonight I go to bed an immigrant rights leader. Tomorrow I will awaken a civil rights leader.
I would think there would have to be a Constitutional amendment. And that just doesn’t seem like an amendment people would want to be messing with….
Well, let’s see…Hunter turned me off the moment he said the AZ law was a “fantastic” starting point. Unless he meant “fantastic” in the “unreal” sense, I think he’s missing some perspective–like that of the immigrants who are hard working, legal and illegal, who are caught up in the AZ mess and are being persecuted. Must be nice to live in his cushy world.
And what else is Hunter suggesting? That a 15-year-old citizen of parents without papers be deported?
People always think of “anchor babies” when they make these sweeping recommendations. It’s easier to think of babies being sent back with their parents because babies and small children don’t have the memories older children do. Younger children tend to be more resilient so long as they are not abused. But the fact is, Hunter et al are disregarding the larger picture. Childhood isn’t just about babies.
Those 17-year-old immigrant children who have registered to vote will be voting people like Hunter right out of office, and rightly so.
Now, that is a powerful photo op for re-election. Rounding up children and babies for deportation? I am sickened.
What does he suggest we do with my kid? Born to a legal citizen and an undocumented resident? Should he have dual citizenship? Or none? A-S-S
And the fact that Mr. Twinad cannot get a status adjustment is totally ridiculous! Looking at it from an America freedom point of view, why can’t you marry who you want? You are an American citizen. Land of the free, home of the brave and all that.
And people have the nerve to say ‘enforce the laws’ as an answer? It sounds to me like the laws keep changing.
I know, preaching to the choir. The most interesting thing I’ve learned by living through this is I have NEVER had a single person I know that knows our situation say that they think he shouldn’t be allowed to adjust his status. Anonymous posters on blogs? Many! But I have a diverse group of friends, co workers, neighbors etc. and never once have any of them, even those that I know to be on the opposite end of the spectrum politically (for Pete’s sake, my parents, those life long Republicans!) have ever said the kinds of things written on blogs about it.
When we got married, there was no reason in the world to think that I wouldn’t be allowed to sponsor him and be successful in getting the adjustment. 7 months too late. And now, 9 years later, this sort of issue never even makes it into the discussion. If only 1% of “illegals” are married to an American citizen, that would mean there are over 100,000 people like us. I mean really, why is it so hard to at least change that part of the current law? Are people really that heartless? I haven’t found that to be the case in “real life”, only the blogosphere. And even there, I seem to remember even Rick Bentley last year offering up that even he tended to think that in this type of situation the law should be relaxed a little bit. And he takes a pretty hard line!
Oh, and I just caught Duncan’s quote above regarding what it takes to be American citizen…”it’s what’s in our souls.” Excuse me, but does he even have one? And if so, I certainly hope that is not what an American soul consists of. If so, I guess I would rather move to Central America.
Not sure he has a soul Twinad, so I am not sure if he even knows what he is talking about. You pose and interesting question, does a child borne that has one undocumented immigrant parent have enough “blood” line to qualify as having enough American “soul” ?
The more I think about it the more disgusted I become with Mr. Duncan.
CNN report from Arizona:
“Earlier this week, a CNN crew spent 12 hours on patrol with Pinal County deputies. In that time, the deputies captured more than 50 suspected illegal immigrants and about 2,000 pounds of marijuana.”
But we all know they just come here for a better life! Right, I guess marijuana sales are down in Mexico. This is happening 24/7 and you don’t see a problem? Blinded by race for sure.
From CNN: “The law, which will go into effect in 90 days, has already drawn at least two lawsuits and condemnation from the Mexican government and other Latin American nations.”
Funny, and you have to carry papers at all times down there not to mention some of the toughest immigration laws you wouldn’t ever allow here! Facts, not IMO.
The 14th Amendment needs to be interpreted in a court of law. Decades ago, the government started to interpret it in a way that assumed the children of illegal immigrants gained citizenship automatically. But no court ruled this.
I think a reasonable interpretation is that they are not citizens.
This is a compromise that I would support – to let the “anchor babies” have citizenship, but not imbued with a right to bring additional family members over.
And going forward, no more citizenship for illegal immigrants’ kids. I believe that eventually the courts will see this issue and will rule this way, upsetting many people’s apple carts.
Congressman Hunter should respect the Constitution of the United States. The 14th Amendment is the reason that he, I and all of us are United States citizens.
SA,
Who’s schmokin the weed? The US has an insatiable appetite for illegal drugs. And we are selling them the weapons!
Twinad, you’ve just proven that no matter how wrong or bad or law breaking those below the border are you will stand behind them 100%. Too bad you’re standing 100% against America in the process! US citizen are you?
While Rick usually isn’t one of those who hollers ‘Constitution’ I do have to sit back and snicker at how the Constitution suddenly isn’t suiting a whole lot of people. Funny how its right up there with Moses and the 10 Commandments when it comes to 2nd Amendment and yet when we get over to the 14th, those tablets of granite start to shatter a bit.
Maybe I am imagining it….
I need to search for a southern Arizona blog. Now that should be interesting coming from the people who experience all this first hand. With 70% approval of the law it would be an eye opener to learn the reason behind the approval rating without all the racial BS thrown in. The funny thing about throwing a term around so generously is that it soon loses its impact as has some four letter words. Soon being called a ‘racist’ will be a proud symbol for those who had the courage to stand up for the citizens of this and not some other country. After all if you are against illegal immigration generally you are considered a ‘racist’ so really who cares anymore?
Not standing behind them, just pointing out the facts of WHY and FOR WHOM the drugs are being smuggled. And we ARE selling them the weapons. But you don’t want that to stop or be regulated, right?
70% of a sampling of 500 people. For crying out loud, Tom Tancredo thinks the law goes too far.
MH I feel it’s long overdue for a court to validate the way we have chosen to interpret the 14th Amendment in this regard. It seems clear for the language that the authorsd did NOT intend to give citizenship to children of people here illegally – and on the floor of Congress they agreed that the Amendment as written did not. (They did intend to ensure that children of slaves and American Indians could be seen as citizens).
These rallies are having the same affect on the nation as the rallies here didi in PWC. I just read through the first 120 comments posted on Yahoo News about the rallies, and not a single one was in support of the rallies. It was 100% for the enforcement of the Arizona law. This is exactly what occurred here in PWC. They rallied, we took notice and got ticked off, then passed an enforcement law! Trust me, with Obama turning his back on this whole situation, more states will follow the same path. The ironic thing is that because Obama isn’t addressing this it will cost him the Latino vote.
I think that what they are looking at in the House is whether the Congress does have the power under Amendment XIV to make such a change in citizenship status without actually having to amend the Constitution. Amendment XIV has five distinct sections. I cannot see where Section 5 concerning Congressional powers is aimed at anything but all of the first four sections. Section 5 does not specify applicability to a specific section or sections of the amendment. For certain any change would go through the courts. It already did at least once, but that court decision appears to have been vague enough to leave some wiggle room for discussion.
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.
That is the crux of the question. Do the children of illegal aliens fall under the “jurisdiction” of the US, as in being citizens? It should be adjudicated.
As to the Constitution…yep. We should follow it. First we have to determine the citizenship status of the children. If we follow the law, and its determined that these children are NOT citizens, then they are illegal, too. If they are citizens, then they fall under the jurisdiction of their parents. Minors must stay with parents, unless a court can rule otherwise, or guardianship is arranged. The law does not change because its inconvenient. If the children are socialized as Americans, returning to their country of origin should come as a shock. When they discover how restrictive their countries of origin are, perhaps they’ll change them.
As to the guns, the drug criminals are getting the guns from all over. The weapons of choice are M-16 automatic rifles, either stolen or purchased from the Mexican army, AK-47 assault rifles, purchased on the black market. Some weapons come from the US, but not through normal means. As to the drugs, yep. We have a market. So, what do we do to restrict supply and demand. One, restrict the supply ROUTE. Two, empower the local authorities to investigate illegal aliens. Three, de-criminalize marijuana. Perhaps all drugs.
This also applies to firearms going the the other way. The immigration and firearm laws of Mexico are VERY restrictive. Let the Mexicans buy arms to defend themselves from the drug gangs.
The Arizona law basically transfers what the federals can do to a state level. The illegal aliens and their enablers/supporters/profiteers always organize these rallies on May 1st. I notice that, with all their members, these “support” groups never try to seriously change the laws, even at a state level.
As to marriage between citizens and illegal aliens, the children would seem to be naturalized citizens. Don’t know. If I had any questions about it, I would get it checked asap. My question is why would one marry someone that is illegally here. If you don’t know, then why not? If so, get it fixed before it becomes an issue. Follow the rules. I have immigrants in my family. They followed the rules. My nieces and nephew are of Guatemalan descent. But my sister made sure that he was of legal status before they married.
Just noticed, in typing “If the children are socialized as Americans, returning to their country of origin”, it should read “country of their parents’ origin.”
Of course they fall under the jurisdiction of the USA. I don’t think we want to get into foreign nationals not falling under our jurisdiction. I think that might mean diplomats. They are already a problem.
Getting legal status isn’t always possible. Rules change. Furthermore, we don’t always have control over whom we fall in love with and when we fall. Maybe people don’t ask to see a green card first off.
There are all sorts of strange situations that can keep a person from a status adjustment. I know of 3 cases right off the top of my head that just don’t seem right. It shouldn’t be too difficult.
Moon,
See, that’s the problem right there. What does that clause mean, exactly? Until we decide that, we can’t do anything. When it was written, “immigration” was much easier.