House Republican Calls for Deportation of U.S. Citizens

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just a few weeks ago, the political fight over immigration policy was barely a blip on the national radar. Now we have a House Republican lawmaker, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), calling for the government to deport U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.

"Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens," Hunter was asked. "I would have to, yes," Hunter said. "... We simply cannot afford what we're doing right now," he said. "... It takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It's what's in our souls. ..."

Hunter made his comments at a "tea party" rally in the San Diego County city of Ramona over the weekend.

Let's be real clear about this. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that those "born ... in the United States" are "citizens of the United States." It also says that no state can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

For that matter, the Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that a baby born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants was legally a U.S. citizen, even though federal law at the time denied citizenship to people from China. The court said birth in the United States constituted "a sufficient and complete right to citizenship."

What this Republican congressman is saying, then, is that he supports a policy wherein the U.S. government deports U.S. citizens based on their parents' immigration status.

Even for the GOP, this is pretty nutty. Indeed, if American officials were planning to deport American citizens, where would the children be expected to go?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Though I agree that amendment should be repealed.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The 14th amendment is being bastardized day in and day out in this country and anyone who understands the intent of that amendment knows that. It was NEVER intended to be used in this manner and anyone who thinks otherwise is being truly dishonest about the scenario.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The 14th amendment is being bastardized day in and day out in this country and anyone who understands the intent of that amendment knows that. It was NEVER intended to be used in this manner and anyone who thinks otherwise is being truly dishonest about the scenario.

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.

...........

It's pretty straightforward. For someone who thinks some amendments are sacrosanct, it's pretty odd for you to downplay the importance of this amendment and the words written.

[Heracles 417]

Well it's about time that amendment is amended to reflect the world we live in.

The United States is one of few countries left that does not require one of the parents to be a citizen to grant citizenship.

[Heracles 417]

It's pretty straightforward. For someone who thinks some amendments are sacrosanct, it's pretty odd for you to downplay the importance of this amendment and the words written.

Actually Paul is correct. The 14th amendment was enacted following the civil war to ensure slaves were not short-changed. It was not enacted to allow foreigners to jump the border and get viva la citizenship.

[Ban Hammer 13,400]

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.

...........

It's pretty straightforward. For someone who thinks some amendments are sacrosanct, it's pretty odd for you to downplay the importance of this amendment and the words written.

what do you suppose that in bold means?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Steve, take off the rose colored glasses!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Obviously any amendment outside of the Bill of Rights has room for changes.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I don't have any problem with a child born on US soil getting citizenship. Now his parents can go back home and wait until he's 21 so he can sponsor them to immigrate.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

what do you suppose that in bold means?

The bold means nothing towards this argument, it is completely irrelevant. Either you can read what the amendment says, and choose to feel it is wrong and needs amending, or you can perform mental jujitsu and try and say it does not mean what it says.

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.

Not liking their skin color, not liking their parents skin color, not liking their parents citizenship status, none of these things are qualifiers in this amendment...

Again to the 'we need all illegals out now' crowd, how do you propose to reasonably accomplish this without incurring tremendous financial and individual liberty costs?

Edited April 29, 2010 by ready4ONE

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The bold means nothing towards this argument, it is completely irrelevant. Either you can read what the amendment says, and choose to feel it is wrong and needs amending, or you can perform mental jujitsu and try and say it does not mean what it says.

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.

Not liking their skin color, not liking their parents skin color, not liking their parents citizenship status, none of these things are qualifiers in this amendment...

Again to the 'we need all illegals out now' crowd, how do you propose to reasonably accomplish this without incurring tremendous financial and individual liberty costs?

I'd prefer it to be amended to the citizenship of a parent.

[Ban Hammer 13,400]

The bold means nothing towards this argument, it is completely irrelevant.

exactly why you'll never understand it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Paul is correct. The intent of the framers of the amendment did not include children born to parents from other countries to receive birthright citizenship. Normally, the evaluation of the meaning of a law is based on the intent of its framers, but, political considerations have interfered all too often through judicial activism, rendering the intent meaningless. The phase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was originally meant to EXCLUDE children of foreign parents, especially those who were in the US due to employment or as diplomats.

It was never meant to create a birthright citizenship; the courts did that. That interpretation can and should be undone, but will be difficult to do because the ** Party is on a tear to create more liberals to vote for them, and allowing illegals to depend upon citizen children to keep them in the country and on the government dole is part of that plan.

What it undone? Don't vote ** and lobby like crazy.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The bold means nothing towards this argument, it is completely irrelevant. Either you can read what the amendment says, and choose to feel it is wrong and needs amending, or you can perform mental jujitsu and try and say it does not mean what it says.

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.

Not liking their skin color, not liking their parents skin color, not liking their parents citizenship status, none of these things are qualifiers in this amendment...

Again to the 'we need all illegals out now' crowd, how do you propose to reasonably accomplish this without incurring tremendous financial and individual liberty costs?

Take a small financial hit.. We are everywhere else.

Make it simple. Encourage the Mexican/Latin American community to rat out the illegals. Offer a $1000 to turn over known illegals.

Offer employers a temporary tax incentive for being able to prove the citizenship status of all of their employees.

Check on those who don't speak English when pulled over for regular moving violations...

Those are a couple of examples.. I'm sure we could come up with more.