Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: SPLC President Richard *Cohen* urges Congress not to tamper with birthright citizenship
Source: SPLC
URL Source: http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform ... amper-with-birthright-citizens
Published: Apr 29, 2015
Author: SPLC
Post Date: 2015-05-05 00:11:41 by X-15
Keywords: kikenvermin, vomit
Views: 93
Comments: 10

Altering the 14th Amendment’s promise of citizenship to all children born within the United States would undermine one of our nation’s bedrock principles and risk creating a new population of second-class citizens, Southern Poverty Law Center President Richard Cohen told members of Congress today.

In testimony submitted to the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Cohen said the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment “was intended to put the issue of birthright citizenship beyond the reach of congressional legislation.”

The immigration subcommittee, headed by Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa, held the hearing to examine whether birthright citizenship should be altered either by legislation or constitutional amendment.

The 14th Amendment, enacted in the wake of the Civil War, overruled the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision and ensured that former slaves and their descendants were U.S. citizens. Some legal scholars have argued, contrary to Supreme Court rulings, that the amendment was not intended to grant citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil, in particular the children of undocumented immigrants.

Cohen, however, noted that the intent was never in doubt – that it applied to anyone born within the geographic boundaries of the country. “[T]he congressional debate surrounding the Citizenship Clause makes it absolutely clear that its reach was never intended to be limited solely to those persons previously held in servitude,” Cohen said.

Cohen noted that “there has been tension in our country’s history between the egalitarian principle underlying the Constitution’s birthright citizenship clause and our nation’s immigration policy,” which “all too often, has been animated by distinctions based on race and ethnicity.”

“Today, we are witnessing another backlash to our nation’s changing demographics and are engaged in serious debates about our immigration policy,” Cohen said. “Regardless of one’s position on immigration policy questions, the sanctity of the birthright citizenship clause should not be disturbed.”

Cohen told the story of SPLC client Wendy Ruiz, the daughter of undocumented farmworkers in Florida. Ruiz was born and raised in Florida. But when she applied for college, she was charged out-of-state tuition – more than triple the in-state rate – simply because her parents were undocumented.

In 2012, a federal court recognized the rights of Ruiz and other children of undocumented parents, holding that demanding higher tuition was against “a fundamental principle of American jurisprudence,” that children should not be punished for the actions of their parents. The ruling opened the door to a higher education to thousands of children in Florida. Now, Ruiz has obtained an associate degree and is continuing to pursue her education.

Last Fall, Ruiz spoke at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, the church where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his allies launched the modern civil rights movement.

“Wendy told a deeply American story,” Cohen told lawmakers during his oral testimony. “She talked about the struggles of her farmworker parents; she talked about her determination to get an education; she talked about her dream of becoming a lawyer so she could give back to the community.

“It is simply inconceivable to me that our country would deny the blessings of citizenship to the Wendy Ruizes of the world. Our immigration system may be broken; but we should resist calls to roll back birthright citizenship clause in an effort to fix it. The clause expresses a fundamental principle of our democracy – that there are no second-class citizens; that all persons born in this country, regardless of the status of their parents, are equal citizens under the law.”


Poster Comment:

 photo vomit-smiley-007.gif(1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: X-15 (#0) (Edited)

A study of the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and its effects

This Essay is available in PDF (The Fourteenth Amendment...PDF)

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment has a bit of a conundrum. If those subject to the jurisdiction of the United States were made citizens, then why would not the Indians be included? The Amendment clearly excludes "Indians not taxed". Were they not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? If so, and if the Fourteenth Amendment made them "citizens of the United States", why would they not be counted in conjunction with the determination of the apportioning of Representatives?

It's a very long essay (75 pages) with much info. The short answer to the above question as to why they were excluded from jus soli/right of the soil citizenship birthright is that Indians, although born here, are subject to the "quasi nation" jurisdiction(s) of their parents' tribal government(s). Even a partial compromising of jurisdiction and allegiance was exclusionary re: conferral of U.S. citizenship by birth here. Foreign nations like Mexico, China and such of more than "quasi" status would have even more jurisdiction over children born here to parents who are their citizens.

Edited spelling.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-05-07   4:00:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: X-15 (#0)

This nation-killing practice needs to end.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2015-05-07   7:23:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: GreyLmist (#1) (Edited)

I guess what trumps all is the thing that enrages $PL¢ types most -- original intent. They would screech that it was evil and racist of the Founding Fathers to do, write and build all as an exercise in pure whiteness. Everybody knows the bottom line was that the US was to be an intensely, exclusively, riotously caucasian confederation.

The idea that the Constitution was written to include blacks, for instance, was so unreal they had to create the 14th Amendment to fake it and just incidentally glom all of us onto the federal plantation. This could only happen in the wake of the total hellish disaster known as Mr. LinKoln's war.

Similarly, miscegenation was so hated it was the origin of the marriage license -- a license at that time properly meaning permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal, not something routinely gotten by everybody who gets married, takes a car on the roadways or whatever. (I almost said "drives" -- that was close.)

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-05-07   8:04:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: NeoconsNailed (#3)

travels

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2015-05-07   8:11:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Lod (#4) (Edited)

I was going to say travels, but that could include passengers. It's like a fun word game keeping a step ahead of the government scribes and pharisees, isn't it?

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-05-07   8:26:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: NeoconsNailed (#5)

Absolutely. As I understand it, if you have paying passengers, you're a driver who would need a license, otherwise, you and your crew are just traveling.

I think...

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2015-05-07   9:03:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: NeoconsNailed (#3) (Edited)

I guess what trumps all is the thing that enrages $PL¢ types most -- original intent. They would screech that it was evil and racist of the Founding Fathers to do, write and build all as an exercise in pure whiteness. Everybody knows the bottom line was that the US was to be an intensely, exclusively, riotously caucasian confederation.

The idea that the Constitution was written to include blacks, for instance, was so unreal they had to create the 14th Amendment to fake it and just incidentally glom all of us onto the federal plantation. This could only happen in the wake of the total hellish disaster known as Mr. LinKoln's war.

The reason all citizens of the States had to be "glommed onto the federal plantation" also, as you say, in order to give 14th Amendment U.S. citizenship (and so, Constitutional Rights protection) to any freed Blacks who didn't yet happen to be considered citizens of a State (for apportionment of Congressional reprentation and such) is because of the Uniform Rule of Naturalization in the Constitution that Congress must maintain for Constitutionality. Because of the 14th Amendment, the States cannot confer State citizenship status to children born of illegal aliens, even if they wanted to; much less Constitutionally extend U.S. citizenship to them.

More info on the issue of Indians born here at flashpointmag.com:

American Indians & The United States Constitution by Robert J. Miller, Professor

Excerpts:

After the Civil War when citizenship rights were extended through the Fourteenth Amendment to ex-slaves and to “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States,” that Amendment still excluded individual Indians from citizenship rights and excluded them from being counted towards figuring congressional representation unless they paid taxes. This demonstrates that Congress still considered Indians to be citizens of other sovereign governments even in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

Tribes continue to have a government to government relationship with the United States and they continue to be sovereign governments with primary control over their citizens and their territory.

Edited punctuation.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-05-07   10:40:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: All (#7)

American Indians & The United States Constitution by Robert J. Miller, Professor

Excerpts:

Tribes continue to have a government to government relationship with the United States and they continue to be sovereign governments with primary control over their citizens and their territory.

And that is an example of why this sort of thing is Unconstitutional, imo, as well as an infringement of their sovereignty amounting to something like kidnapping:

Indian Citizenship Act - Wikipedia

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to America's indigenous peoples, called "Indians" in this Act. (The Fourteenth Amendment already defined as citizens any person born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excluded anyone who already had citizenship in a foreign power such as a tribal nation.) The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924.

Imagine if that law, to be fairer, also said that all American citizens were to likewise be granted membership status in the tribal governments of their choice. Doubtless, they would have objected.

Congress does not have the power to alter Amendments by simply passing "laws", nor can it scribble over the Constitution's Uniform Rule of Naturalizaion requirement and jurisdiction intent of the Founders therein by passing "laws".

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-05-07   11:29:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: GreyLmist (#8)

I think I like what you just said. Wonder if the tribal Injuns have "drivers licenses" and license plates (or as they call 'em here in Dixie, car tags.)

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-05-07   11:36:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: NeoconsNailed, Lod (#3)

I guess what trumps all is the thing that enrages $PL¢ types most -- original intent

From the Cohen article: “Regardless of one’s position on immigration policy questions, the sanctity of the birthright citizenship clause should not be disturbed.”

Let me twist that damn jews own words:

“Regardless of one’s position on *GUNS*, the sanctity of the *2nd Amendment* clause should not be disturbed.”

:)

Somewhere a JEW named COHEN just fell down in screaming agony...........

 photo 001g.gif
“With the exception of Whites, the rule among the peoples of the world, whether residing in their homelands or settled in Western democracies, is ethnocentrism and moral particularism: they stick together and good means what is good for their ethnic group."
-Alex Kurtagic

X-15  posted on  2015-05-07   13:19:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest