Russell Pearce Buffaloes CNN with Nativist Bull on 14th Amendment

I wish that when CNN news anchors have on a practiced prevaricator like state Senate President-elect Russell Pearce to discuss something as specific as the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship, they would at least read up on the subject. Or failing that, have a Constitutional expert or historian on hand to bat this tee ball out of the park.

But during a recent appearance on CNN, Pearce rolled over his interlocutor Jessica Yellin with half-truths, historical inaccuracies, and outright falsehoods, many of them Pearce and other nativist ne'er-do-wells have repeated ad nauseam. All of these myths, canards, and racist fantasies have been thoroughly debunked at length. The evidence is not difficult to find online.

Dealing with Pearce is like dealing with a Holocaust denier, a "birther," or a 9/11 "truther." You have to be familiar to some degree with the specious mendacities such looney tunes will spit, so that you can better cram their skulls into a verbal head press and squeeze till their eyeballs pop. 

Alas, Pearce's interviewer was clearly unprepared. You could tell that she knew he was wrong, but she did not know enough to counter his bull.

As I've dealt with much of this nonsense in my blog post, "Russell Pearce, Enemy of the U.S. Constitution," and in other blog posts and Bird columns, I won't go over all the same ground again here. But I will touch on some of Pearce's more blatant whoppers, and maybe someone at CNN will catch a clue next time they decide to give this neo-Nazi-hugging racist the time of day.

On the "original intent" of the birthright citizenship provision, Pearce had this to say:

"They made it very clear," Pearce said of the 14th Amendment's framers, "on the debate, on the floor, Senator Howard, who wrote the 14th Amendment said this amendment does not apply to aliens or foreigners."

Pearce is speaking of Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, one of proponents of the 14th Amendment, who introduced language that would become this part of the 14th Amendment:

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.

This is what Howard said about that language back in 1866:

"This amendment, which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Constitutional scholar Garrett Epps, whose book Democracy Reborn tells the history of the amendment's drafting, has addressed the twisting of Howard's words in The Atlantic online, though it was Ann Coulter doing the twisting at the time, not Pearce.

"In order to inject unclarity into the debate," he wrote, "opponents of birthright citizenship resort to a favorite technique: partial and distorted quotation from legislative debates."

He added:

"The larger problem, though, is that the quote doesn't say what Coulter claims it says. It says something that is true as a matter of law today: children of accredited foreign diplomatic personnel, even if born on U.S. soil, are not birthright citizens. Why not? Well, because of diplomatic immunity, these children are not `subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. Like their parents, children of diplomats are not subject to arrest or civil suit, even if they commit crimes or torts on U.S. soil. That was the law in 1866 and it's the law today, and that's what Howard is talking about."

On to another laughable Pearce line:

"I'm amazed at these folks who think they've read the constitution," Pearce tells Yellin at one point. "Apparently they've not read the debate..."

Pearce means the debate over the birthright citizenship language from 1866, which you can peruse, here. But if Pearce had read the debate as he claims to have done, he would know that the Senators did in fact discuss the effect of the amendment on such communities as the Chinese and Gypsies.

Pennsylvania Senator Edgar Cowan complained that the fallout of the language would be that children of such groups would be citizens by birth on American soil. California Senator John Conness agreed, and asserted this would be a good thing.

"The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President," stated Conness,"relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States."

So much for what Epps likes to call the nativists' "phony originalism." The original intent of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause was that all those born on U.S. soil, unless they were enemy combatants, foreign diplomats, or Indians living on their reservations, would be American citizens. 

(I should note that all Native Americans were granted citizenship by Congress in 1924, a side issue nativists grasp on to, but does nothing to advance their cause. Ho, cited below, addresses the issue in the position paper I've linked to, and you can read more there.)

Rather than the U.S. Supreme Court's 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, upholding the birthright citizenship provision, Pearce likes to cite previous Supreme Court decisions. the Slaughter-House cases, and Elk v. Wilkins, each of which touch tangentially on the issue at hand.

James C. Ho, a lawyer who clerked under Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and served as chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittees on the Constitution and Immigration under the chairmanship of Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), deftly dealt with this argument in a 2006 position paper. He wrote:

Repeal proponents seek refuge in earlier judicial precedents. As detailed by the two dissenting justices in Wong Kim Ark, the Court did suggest a contrary view in the Slaughter-House Cases (1872), as well as in Elk v. Wilkins (1884).

First, repeal proponents cite a single sen­tence in Slaughter-House, stating that "[t]he phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was in­tended to exclude from its operation chil­dren of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." But that case did not ac­tually implicate the Citizenship Clause, so this passage is pure dicta. Moreover, the Court immediately backed away from this assertion just two years later in Minor v. Happersett. That same year, Justice Field (a Slaughter-House dissenter) adopted jus soli In re Look Tin Sing, wholly disregarding the Slaughter-House dicta. And the Court itself, in Wong Kim Ark, disparaged the Slaughter-House state­ment as "wholly aside from the question in judgment, and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question," and "unsup­ported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities." 

Elk v. Wilkins fares no better. Elk involved Indians, not aliens, and it merely confirmed what we already knew from the 1866 Senate debate: that Indians are not constitutionally entitled to birthright citizenship. Repeal proponents hasten to point out that refer­ences to "allegiance" can be found in Elk, just as they can be found in the Senate debate. But again, these stray comments do not de­tract from the analysis. To the contrary, Elk specifically endorsed the view, later adopted in Wong Kim Ark, that foreign diplomats are uniquely excluded from the Citizenship Clause. That is unsurprising, for both Elk and Wong Kim Arkwere authored by the same justice: Horace Gray. Repeal propo­nents thus find themselves in the awkward position of endorsing Justice Gray's majority views in Elk but distancing themselves from Justice Gray's majority views in Wong Kim Ark. Such tension can be avoided simply by taking Elk at face value - and by accepting Wong Kim Ark as the law of the land.

Finally, there's Pearce's empty-handed assertion that "a majority of Americans support a correcting of the amendment."

Um, not really. An August CNN poll found the country split down the middle on the matter, with 49 percent favoring a Constitutional amendment preventing "children born here from becoming U.S. citizens unless their parents are also U.S. citizens."

Most people have never given any thought to the matter, and know very little about the history of the amendment. So such numbers do not surprise me, though they are hardly the mandate to which Pearce lays claim. Not that I would want such things as the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, or the 14th Amendment decided by a poll, in any case.

Still, a little informed debate would go a long way in educating people. It's irresponsible of CNN to put this nativist mad dog on TV without rebuttal. Ignorance unopposed can sound convincing to the uninformed, which is why some bloggers out there actually think Pearce knows what he's talking about.

My Voice Nation Help
86 comments
Defletion
Defletion

I think its well know that the New Times is overtly and openly a Progressive Liberal peice of junk. It caters to a group of individuals who love to play the same card over and over ad nauseum. I know most legal hispanics think ILLEGAL TRESPASS is causing them jobs and hurting their families. HAND UP not a HAND OUT.... the sheer numbers are the problem. What is your genious solution... the do nothing plan or blame a white guy is old

S
S

Will Pearce, Brewer, et al. not be satisfied until this State is a complete international LAUGHINGSTOCK? I've lived here for almost 15 years and I have watched it happen! These people couldn't have been elected dog-catcher until theyd poisoned the weak-minded and fearful through their lies and distortions! No shame, I tell you, NO SHAME!

independent!
independent!

S- Are you telling me that it means its ok to IGNORE the issue, because it IS a real issue. Dont DISMISS the information if the source isn't someone you agree with.What is your answer amnesty or what more can we do. I know everyone can move into your house and YOU can FIX it all right? Oh wait... now I would be you will change the subject.... deflection and deception and distortion and distraction. Why I am an Independent (but I will take a topic and decide on the issue).

chicagonut
chicagonut

How about this? Since there is disagreement among us of what the true intent of the 14th meant, why not just debate if it makes sense today to change its current interpretation? Times have changed. We have millions of illegal alien parents giving birth in our country and that entitles them to all kinds tax and welfare benefits through their citizen children. We cannot afford to keep this up. To me our birthright citizenship should be highly prized, not just attained by parents here in violation of our immigration laws giving birth on our soil. Why not approach it from that standpoint? Nothing is carved in stone. Why do you think we have had amendments to our Constitution in the past?

Many other countries require that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident to attain birthright citizenship for their newborns. They have managed to work out the details and so can we.

Roy
Roy

This article conveniently ignores what Howard additionally said:

"[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word 'jurisdiction,'” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."

This article also ignores the 1873 US Attorney General opinion on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction." Also ignored is the fact the the US govt argued Wong Kim Ark was not a citizen which shows they were under no delusion as linking it to English common law.

Paul Madison destroys these scholars here:

http://federalistblog.us/2007/...

http://federalistblog.us/2006/...

Coz
Coz

My my Pearce, what lies you tell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

This video shows State Senator Russell Pearce endorsing JT Ready (AZ's most famous White Supremacist) in 2006 for Mesa City Council. The footage has never been seen by the public until now. It was given to Steve Lemons (Phoenix New Times) by an anonymous source. He gave me a copy.

It also shows Pearce deny knowing Ready in 2007 as well as an exclusive interview with JT Ready telling his side of the story. It's interesting. According to Ready, they use to hang on his porch and tell Mexican jokes. I asked Ready if Pearce ever told him to "cool it" as JT Ready openly supports NSM and other white supremacist ideals. Ready stated that he never did but his wife, Lu Ann had as she was concerned of Russell's career.

Probably the most interesting thing is Ready explaining his relationship and role with Pearce's long-time political crusade against Mexicans. It's also important to note that while JT Ready seems to be telling the truth-I have no way of verifying everything he says. I will give him credit as so far he seems to show more integrity and honesty then Senator Pearce. Ready is not happy with Pearce's recent activities with Lobbyists, his public disapproval of the NSM march on Nov 13, 2010 and his repeated denial of their long time friendship and political alliance on the immigration issue. Mr. Pearce should probably get honest real soon as the skeletons in his closet are messy and plenty and its time to take them out.

I have more info and will be releasing it. If I were him, I'd come clean. The people of Arizona deserve the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Here is a factual time-line of Pearce's relationship with Ready which can easily be verified by reading Steve Lemons years of compilations and research.

2004: Pearce ordained Ready as an elder in the Mormon church. ( official document in video as well as published in Phx New Times http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.c...

2006: Pearce is warned by the Bill Strauss of the ADLof Ready's connections to white supremacists.

March 2007: Ready's neo-Nazi activities are publicly exposed at an open legislative hearing,reported on by the local media.

June 2007: Pearce and Ready work the crowd together at an anti-immigrant rally at the Arizona State Capitol.

Happy New year,

Dennis Gilman

Tina
Tina

Thanks for this video. I agree with your assessment about Ready, "I will give him credit as so far he seems to show more integrity and honesty then Senator Pearce."

J.T. Ready's previous PNT posts about Pearce's lies, denials and deceit and the Pearce family also were enlightening. They reveal that NOBODY can trust Pearce, that he has no conscience whatever, that he'll lie to anyone. Also, as shown on the video, self-serving Pearce can't handle probing inquiry: he lies and denies, hurriedly walks away in a huff (much like Brewer in that respect), and does not appreciate people's memories or the cameras that expose his lies and contradictions.

Boosting Immunity
Boosting Immunity

Yeah the only problem with that is the fact that half of this state is openly racist and a quarter closet already so exposing him does not do anything detrimental to him here. Maybe in congress but not here. There needs to be a direct correlation between Pearce and his insane laws and the declining AZ economy. Then people in AZ are going to get a clue. But until then he is going to be a hero to many in AZ.

chicagonut
chicagonut

Please explain how half of AZ is racist. Who are they racist against and what behavior or words are they using that makes them racists? You have stats on your "half" assertion? Did you poll all AZ citizens?

Muawiyah
Muawiyah

Hmm, then there was the State Department rule on family visas ~ if you had a baby in the USA while visiting you had to add the baby to the visa. The procedure for doing this was quite easy.

American citizens, though, don't need a visa to be here, so what was on the State Department Group Mind? Were those babies citizens or foreigners?

Hmmm ~

This is within living memory BTW.

Tina
Tina

Muawiyah, if it's as you describe (a newborn born in this country being added to a foreigner's "family visa"), it sounds to me like the State Department is then tacitly approving of the baby's dual citizenship.

However, some countries -- for example, Norway -- do not recognize dual citizenships. A child born in the U.S. would of course be the holder of a recorded birth certificate (name, dob, location) and in that case, because of Norway's position, the child would officially be a U.S. citizen. That would be my take on it.

I'm acquainted with a lovely family, all 4 children born here, dad a U.S. citizen, mom an "Americanized" Norwegian citizen, a UofA graduate who has to regularly renew her visa and who has been gainfully employed in her chosen profession for many years, a definite asset to our society.

Undocumented Commentor
Undocumented Commentor

An article linked from yahoo dropped me here. Wow. This place is White Trash Heaven! Time to back out and clear the cookies and cache.

Mikey1969
Mikey1969

Yet you took the time to not only comment, but to create a login? Wow, quite a lot of trouble to go through to basically just complain about how stupid posting on the message board is.

JDC-Milwaukee
JDC-Milwaukee

With the welfare state we have now, such interpretation that was beneficial in 1866 is now a huge drag on some states' budgets.

By presenting this debate, I have changed my mind that the 14th Amendment applies only to ex-slaves. Obviously that was not the original intent. But I reiterate: there was no welfare in 1866 and there is now. As such, we need to address who is eligible for public assistance and/or birthright citizenship. The factors surrounding the argument have changed in 145 years.

Boosting Immunity
Boosting Immunity

the real issue here is that the FEDERAL government needs to do something about immigration and making a clear path for people to immigrate here. giving sweden the same amount of immigration allotments as they do Mexico is not good immigration.

the one thing about your statement though that is bothersome is the fact that you point to the welfare system. the welfare system is overtaxed at this point because the state is running itself into the ground and many more legitimate claims are made.

Theinnerage
Theinnerage

Not only that, but giving automatic citizenship rights to children of illegal aliens also DIVIDES families since the foreign parents can be deported home for violating their stay here.

We should NOT be culpable in DIVIDING families by giving some automatic citizenship to foreign offspring and their parents can never get it. The parents should be U.S. citizens first and their newborn children then become citizens - not ass backwards!

State welfare costs to Californians for tending to illegals and their children is about $15 Billion and our state is broke! If the illegals went home with their offspring it would reduce state and city budgets, reduce unemployment, reduce traffic, raise wages, give many jobs to teenagers in the restaurant business, etc. All good things wouldn't you agree?

The 14th Amendment as interpreted today has had too many "unintended consequences." It needs to be defined again by the high court.

theinnerage

Mikey1969
Mikey1969

OK, riddle me this...

Pearce and Pals like to claim that the part that makes the kids NOT citizens by birth is the 'subject to the jurisdiction of...' part, saying that by being foreigners, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so how can these people be in the country 'illegally' if they are NOT in fact, "subject to the jurisdiction of" the United States? How can they be arrested, prosecuted, deported, imprisoned, etc?

The answer is that they ARE subject to US jurisdiction, ONLY people with diplomatic immunity are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US while on our soil, everyone else is subject to our jurisdiction.

Pearce can have it one of two ways, I guess:Either the kids are citizens, based on the 14th amendment.Or EVERY SINGLE FOREIGN NATIONAL IN THE US HAS DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY. Period. End of story. You can't have two polar opposite definitions for the same thing, Rusty, no matter how much you stammer and fume.

God, I wish one of these reporters could wedge in enough time to make this point. It would end the debate, at least in this reality, in about 3 seconds.

chicagonut
chicagonut

The point you miss is that that the parents nor their offspring are subject to the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and their jurisdiction is in their homelands. Even tourists are subject to the jurisdiction to our laws but that is the end of it.

Mikey1969
Mikey1969

I call bullshit on that. If they commit a crime in the US, they are subject to the laws which they have violated, and can be held in the country for trial and then to serve the sentence for the crime they have committed. That is FULL JURISDICTION. The offspring ARE subject to the FULL JURISDICTION even if the parents miraculously weren't because the fucking 14th amendment makes them US citizens. Were you sleeping during common sense 101, or did your mom fill your bottles with lead based paint flakes when you were a kid?

Mikey1969
Mikey1969

LOL Mark, I notice you totally ignored the point that if someone commits a crime in the US, they are under the FULL JURISDICTION of the US, foreigner or not, unless they have diplomatic immunity.

Go on and sulk in the corner with your hurt feelings, but that is a truth that is not going away. Legal or not(Actually they couldn't be ILLEGAL if they weren't), foreigners on US soil are subject to our laws and our jurisdiction. As I said in my original post, if they aren't subject to US jurisdiction, then they aren't technically "illegal", so once again the nativists are left without a leg to stand on.

chicagonut
chicagonut

I see, the typical insults in this site. Why don't you all grow up and just express your opinions without insults? Why such anger and hostility? Geez, can't you just agree to disagree without the infantile outbursts?

At any rate, an amendment can be changed. It has been that way throughout the history of our Constitition. Many countries have made it a requirement for at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident. That makes sense to me. It doesn't make sense for a mother to crawl over our border illegally or a foreinger to fly in here to give birth on our soil and their newborn is granted birthright citzenship. Sorry that you don't agree but why can't you disagree with civility? I feel like I have wandered into a kindergarten schoolyard here. Come on we are all adults. Start acting like one.

Grthom
Grthom

Are children born in a foreign country at the time their parents were living in that country considered a citizen of that foreign country? For instance, does Senator McCain have duel citizenship in the country in which he was born?

Boosting Immunity
Boosting Immunity

other places such as Isreal say you can do there anytime and be a citizen as long as you are born jewish...

Chilidawg
Chilidawg

It would depend on the laws of that particular country. For instance, Ireland has law that allow children and grandchildren of Irish citizens to be irish citizens. These laws apply to persons born in the U.S.

PearcetheGrandWizard
PearcetheGrandWizard

Blubber, mumble, mumble, blubber....Pearce, what a f-en racist piece of shit.

linaimai
linaimai

Wholesale all kinds of world brand shoes,jeans,t-shirts,bikini,beach

pants,handbags,wallets,sunglasses,belt,caps,watches etc..▍ ★∴    ....▍▍....█▍ ☆ ★∵ …./    ◥█▅▅██▅▅██▅▅▅▅▅███◤    .◥███████████████◤  ~~~~◥█████████████◤~~~~

??? http://soozone.com???

linaimai
linaimai

Wholesale all kinds of world brand shoes,jeans,t-shirts,bikini,beach

pants,handbags,wallets,sunglasses,belt,caps,watches etc..▍ ★∴    ....▍▍....█▍ ☆ ★∵ …./    ◥█▅▅██▅▅██▅▅▅▅▅███◤    .◥███████████████◤  ~~~~◥█████████████◤~~~~

??? http://soozone.com???

Tina
Tina

In a recent Arizona Republic article entitled "Arizona political leaders -- what lies ahead for 2011," this birthright citizenship issue was touched upon and posed many unanswered questions about a Jan. 5 meeting in the nation's capitol which Pearce plans on attending. It took me a while to find it, but one commenter raised some good inquiries about this matter from the information contained in the article.

"Secretive and sketchy.

We're reading here that Russell Pearce and John Kavanaugh "and lawmakers from SEVERAL (got that?...several..) other states are planning to gather in Washington, D.C. (where in Washington D.C.? hosted and paid for by whom?) on Jan. 5 (who organized this 'event' and who's chairing it?) to REVEAL THE DETAILS of legislation (we're all waiting with baited breath to learn how these radical state politicians intend to sabotage our time-honored 14th Amendment) that proposes to change how children born to illegal immigrants are RECOGNIZED by individual states."

And finally, the old everybody's-doing-it pitch."More than a dozen STATES (if true, not 'states' but radical extremists from certain states) are EXPECTED (expected by whom? The hate group FAIR?) to propose the SAME BILL (prepared and written by whom?) this year." (Reporter's error, supposedly 2011, not 2010.)

When Pearce announced in October his plan to violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14h Amendment, it was reported that Kris Kobach of the FAIR organization, who has a history of writing unconstitutional laws for radical lawmakers to the financial detriment of their jurisdictions, would again be assisting Pearce in writing another of his "gems" for Arizona. Babies born in this country to "illegal immigrants" ARE "recognized" by our Constitution as U.S. citizens....just as babies born here to gypsies, Indians, blacks, Chinese, Jews, Swedes, etc. Been there, done that. We're a country of inclusion, not exclusion. Only babies born here to foreign ambassadors and diplomats are excluded. As much as these radicals might try, they can't re-write the documented intent of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause nor can they re-write judicial history. Last December Russell Pearce introduced his SB 1070, not first to Arizona state lawmakers, but to "ALEC" (a privately funded group, American Legislative Exchange Council) also in D.C. with his trip and all accommodations paid for a week by these vested private interests, including private prison companies. So who's paying Pearce's and Kavanaugh's expenses this time? And who will be running the show for this still un-revealed measure in D.C. on January 5?"

I too would like to know more about this meeting on Jan. 5 in the nation's capitol concerning birthright citizenship which Pearce plans to attend.

Coz
Coz

Meeting ?More like a KKK rally from the sounds of it.

Tina
Tina

Because that NYT link might not work, the New York Times article referred to above appeared in print on Jan. 1, 2011 on page A1 of that edition and is entitled "Immigration Battle Shifts to States With Wave of Bills."

Tina
Tina

Here's more about the influence peddling Mr. KK (Kris Kobach) -- the now well-known writer/creator of unconstitutional laws -- is doing with various state legislators and elected officials of the Russell Pearce mentality. This Dec. 31, 2010 article from the New York Times is informative. Kobach and his misguided followers from a few states are intent on turning the fundamentals of our country's founding and the U.S. Constitution inside out and upside down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01...

Tina
Tina

If not a KKK rally, maybe just a KK (Kris Kobach) rally, organized by the hate group FAIR, represented by Kobach, which has been making its beliefs known and writing unconstitutional immigration laws (including SB 1070) for some small cities across the country for a few years now. FAIR is opposed to ALL immigration.

If that Republic article is factual, I'd sure like to know who wrote the proposed "baby bashing" bill that various state legislators supposedly will be encouraged to introduce in their state legislatures. I also hope that people from the media/press will be there on Jan. 5 to get the lowdown, learn who's there and learn what the promoters are saying to the group and to each other.

The Class Global
The Class Global

Happy New Year 2011 to the NT Blogsters and Blogmeisters! We got a challenge to "Mistalee" from gerric7@gmail.com,

"T-Bone, thanks for the update on these blogs. Get this posted so that cocksucker "Mistalee" gets it right in his/her/its ugly face. "Mistalee," don't call us crackpots when we can document everyhting we state with credible evidence, witnesses, and documentation.

"Mistalee," send an E-mail, phone, and proposed meeting place to Gerric7@gmail.com and we'll see what you're made of, you little dirtbag piece of shit."

Sorry about the obscenities, Mistalee, but I had to send you the whole message. This dude was really pissed, so maybe you can send the E-mail and work it out. He says he knows you from the street and has issues that "only a knock down drag out" will settle.

Paid advertisement.

Check out www.BadPhoenixCops.blogspot.co... for the latest on Phoenix police and government corruption.

That's www.BadPhoenixCops.com - where the TRUTH hurts! Ouch!

HMG on the blogs, online and on time.

MyName
MyName

Go away you illiterate asswipes.

Mikey1969
Mikey1969

Yeah, who the Hell are these morons? I'm really getting tired of this rambling bullshit on these boards. I'd rather get in a knock down drag out flame war with any of the regular A-Holes on these boards than see any more of these weird Spam-ish posts...

Mandy
Mandy

I am sorry to hear about this racist vigilanty , he claims to be "for " the constitution, but is clearly and bluntly yet undermining our countrys constitution! Why is he in power? He needs to fix his own home before he can try and "fix" what is broke (Our Country's Constitution).

Mie
Mie

Russell Pierce is a traitor..to the american people.. where the JOBS ..shut the hell up nazi... there's no progress with this party going backward

Gerry_C
Gerry_C

Russell Pearce is going to demonstrate how ineffective Joe Arpaio really is. I predict that Pearce will in the next year do more damage to the state of Arizona than Arpaio has been able to do in the last 18.

Coz
Coz

That's hard to believe, but yes, it's going to happen.

Chad Snow
Chad Snow

Gerry, I think he already has...

chicagonut
chicagonut

I see the obsession with Pearce and Arapio still continues in here. They must really be a threat to you lefties to get so much of your attention.

Why not just debates the issues rather than who is for or against them? There are many Americans out there aside from Pearce that believe the 14th needs to be re-visited by the Supreme Court as to its true intentions by the writers of it and they aren't "nativists" as you lefties like to sling all those negative labels around of anyone who doesn't hold your political views.

Why do you think there is a qualifer after "all persons born", etc. with "AND subject to the jurisdiction? There would have been no need to add that qualifier to it if birthright citizenship were so cut and dried. The 14th never intended for children of illegal aliens to gain citizenship in that manner. There have just been some very bad rulings on it by some very stupid judges in the past. Anyone who won't at least consider that and research it thoroughly has some kind of agenda to change the demographics of this country via illegal immigration.

IBMMuseum
IBMMuseum

Addressing your last three sentences, Mark, there wasn't the concept of "illegal aliens" when the 14th Amendment was written. If you wanted, you came, there really wasn't any restrictions for western Europeans. And you would be surprised how many had kids before undergoing any kind of naturalization (with its waiting period, even in those times).

I would be more comfortable with you saying the Constitution had to be changed for your ideas of population control, rather than trying to mark-up intent 150 years later...

BTW, your definition of precedent you disagree with ("There have just been some very bad rulings on it by some very stupid judges in the past.") is at odds with any "Rule of Law" notions...

And if I don't believe that, I must have an "agenda"...

MyName
MyName

The article does discuss the issue, very well and in detail. Could you not be bothered to actually read it before spitting out your hate?

Come back when you are ready to refute the allegations of fact and law contained in the article. Until then you are just another wingnut making naked claims unsupported by reason, logic or fact.

In other words, you are a result in search of a rationale, and that is a horrible way to go through life.

chicagonut
chicagonut

What the hell has hate to do with it? I merely have a difference of opinion on the intent of the 14th. Is everything about hate and racism to you lefties? Or do you just like flinging insults around rather than debating the issues.

Chad Snow
Chad Snow

Mark, why is the President of the Arizona Senate traipsing all over the country as a self annointed Constitutional guru instead of here in Arizona trying to plug the massive hole in the budget deficit (that he helped create) or trying to create jobs??? This jackass has done more to destroy Arizona's economy than anyone - Wall Street Journal's words, not mine.

chicagonut
chicagonut

I really don't know or care. As I suggested why not discuss this issue rather than attacking those who don't share your views on it?

Tina
Tina

Mark, why don't YOU read up on the facts and the history of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Pearce -- not a lawyer, not a legal scholar, and not known for his honesty or his integrity -- IS running around the country trying to misinform the ignorant. Your contentions have already been addressed and disputed by educated, knowledgeable people.

Gerry_C
Gerry_C

There are certain classes of government persons (diplomatic representatives) that simply are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any of the states for that matter. That is why the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" was added. These folks can do anything, even mass murder on our soil and we can't prosecute them because they are not subject to our jurisdiction. All we could do in such a situation is expel them from our country.

Like it or not, we have always subjected illegal immigrants to our jurisdiction. In some cases we expel or deport them. In extreme cases we execute them for murder. It is difficult to say that they are not subject to our jurisdiction.

chicagonut
chicagonut

They are only subject to the jurisdiction of our laws if they break them. That is it! Otherwise they are subject to the full jurisdiction of their homelands. Their allegience isn't with this country either. Why do you think there is that little qualifier of "AND" subject to the jurisdiction if that were authomatic?

Mikey1969
Mikey1969

"They are only subject to the jurisdiction of our laws if they break them."

No, you douchebag, they are also subject to the laws of the US if someone breaks them in regards to them. In other words, if you harm or rob a foreign national, you will be held accountable, they can press charges just like everyone else. Despite what the Nativists claim, foreigners are still granted civil rights in the US.

chicagonut
chicagonut

Illegal immigrants are only subject to our "laws" while they are on our soil. The same thing applies to tourists, etc. Their full jurisdiction and allegience is to their homelands and so are their children. That was the reason for the qualifer of "and" subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There would be no reason for a qualifier if birthright citizenship were for everyone and anyone who just happened to have a leg on our soil while giving birth.

Loosecannonsbluesband
Loosecannonsbluesband

We do not suffer fools lightly here. Therefore, fool, go suffer somewhere else!

Mikey1969
Mikey1969

"Illegal immigrants are only subject to our "laws" while they are on our soil."

Nope. Try again. If someone defrauds a US citizen from overseas, they can be charged and arrested from their home country.

MyName
MyName

In the article there is considerable discussion of what is meant by "subject to the jurisdiction." As a lawyer, that phrase has specific meaning to me, but I'm curious what you think it means to you.

Because you rely on it so much, please tell us what it means and why you think it applies to a larger class than just diplomats, their staff and others who are immune from prosecution in the United States?

How do you square your claims with the clear language from the debates where aliens where very much considered to be within the Amendment's reach?

How do you reconcile your argument with the fact that every judge, even the conservative ones, have ruled in opposite your claim for more than 150 years?

Tina
Tina

Mark, as I said above, a newborn infant born in this country is NOT an illegal immigrant. That newborn infant, regardless of the immigration status of his/her parent(s), is a U.S. citizen.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...