Comments on: Republicans propose Mexican border wall

By: David Darlington

David Darlington — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:52:48 +0000

A wall is a terrible idea unless you’re trying to keep out Mongol hordes. If we want to cut down on illegal immigration, we need to go after the big agribusinesses (like the fields in Califoria) and the service industries that actively aid-and-abet illegal immigration because it gives them cheap labor.
Getting rid of “jus soli” is both wrong and impossible without a constitutional amendment, for all the reasons above. Why is my party still taking pages out of the Pete Wilson playbook?
Finally, I couldn’t let this go by:
“2. How much would it cost?
More well than you can imagine….”
I don’t know, I can imagine quite a bit.

By: Mike O

Mike O — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 04:39:43 +0000

This will be an issue in the 2008 presidential election. Hillary Clinton postitioned herself to the right of many Republicans on it a few months ago. We’ll know it’a a real and not a political concern if strong penalties against employers are proposed. As far as making the border tight enough to keep out terrorists, they might make up what? .0001% of those crossing illegally. More “look we’re doing something” legislation.

By: Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:10:53 +0000

It is precisely in the case of illegal immigrants that birthright citizenship becomes so important: It encourages them, now that their children are U.S. citizens, to become citizens themselves, or at the very least to acculturate so that they aren’t more of a liability.
It would not surprise me if Congress simply passed a law to overrule one of the key provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. They and the other branches of government have done it before, whether through malign neglect (permitting Jim Crow) to in effect declaring the entire privileges and immunities clause null and void (the Slaughterhouse Cases). Why stop there? I mean, the whole thing is just a list of suggestions, right?

By: C M

C M — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 12:29:15 +0000

1. “Thus, if you have a child while in the US legally, whether by immigration or visa or just plain tourist, the child is deemed an American citizen.”
2. 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. (emphasis added)
The first emphasis is fairly clear, I don’t believe there is much of a way getting around it. You could somehow, if you chose to free all non-citizens from US jurisdiction, do that according to the second emphasis, but that would seem to be an outrageously bad idea.

By: Loren

Loren — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:31:23 +0000

I have no problem with the wall, but I tend to think that birthright citizenship is one of the chief measures that has allowed the U.S. to absorb so many diverse immigrants as successfully as we have.
But if I’m understanding the proposal correctly (and I may not be), I think it’s only being suggested that we end birthright citizenship as it applies to illegal immigrants.
Thus, if you have a child while in the US legally, whether by immigration or visa or just plain tourist, the child is deemed an American citizen. And if your presence in the US is in violation of US law, then your child can’t profit from that fact.
Maybe the question of Constitutionality is whether a ‘legal presence’ requirement can be read into the 14th Amendment.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:34:36 +0000

1. Would it work?
It would work as well as interdictions of drug shipments.
2. How much would it cost?
More well than you can imagine….

By: Balta

Balta — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:38:25 +0000

“It’s hard to imagine how Congress could possible think they could undercut this with simple legislation.”
It’s hard to imagine lots of things this Congress has done. That hasn’t stopped them.
Here are my 2 questions about this bill…the wall part that is.
1. Would it work?
2. How much would it cost?

By: wahoofive

wahoofive — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 18:39:33 +0000

The 14th amendment clearly states:

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.

It’s hard to imagine how Congress could possible think they could undercut this with simple legislation.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 17:06:34 +0000

The Americans are not a people united by blood and soil, but by a creed. Nativism is not new here, but it is always depressing. A poem comes to mind; may its truth be remembered.
The New Colossus
Emma Lazarus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

By: A Steve

A Steve — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:21:29 +0000

Getting rid of jus soli would be a really bad idea, and I’m pretty sure it would require an amendment. I’m not positive, but I think the USSC said that bit of the common law was codified in the Constitution.