Tweet
.......................
-
http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg
"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit -
.......................http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg
"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit -
Nobody needs to repeal 14th.
All it takes is strict interpretation and majority of Judges favoring one or another way.
______________________________________
Citizenship Clause
The purpose of the Citizenship Clause was to provide citizenship to former slaves born in the United States.
During the original debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause described the clause as . . . excluding not only Indians but "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
In 1884, the meaning was tested as to whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality, in the case of Elk v. Wilkins where the parents were Native American. The Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens despite the fact that they were born in the United States.
In 1898, the meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark regarding children of Chinese citizens born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.[3]
The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[4] Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Amendment,[5] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[6] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)[7] and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).[8] Nevertheless, some claim that the Congress possesses the power to exclude such children from US citizenship by legislation.[5]
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitutionhttp://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg
"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibitComment
-
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE:
With nomination of Palin as VP we can pretty much be sure that for the next 8 to 16 years White House will be controlled by Republican Party.
Who will run Congress remains to be seen.
But what the concequences for immigration and related policies will be?
1. It should be expected that in the next 8 to 16 years anywhere from 6 to 7 judges of Supreme Court will be replaced(due to retirement, age and etc.).
What impact will it have on 14th Amendment?
Most likely a new ruling or interpretation by USSC will overturn birthright Citizenship, could even do so retroactively.
2. It is also should be expected that borders will be better enforced (under McCain as well as Palin) and the influx of immigrants, both legal and legal, considerably reduced.
3. What will happen to illegals already present in US?
Are they going to be deported, are there going to be swift actions to that end or are there going to be legalization programs, kind that McCain supported prior to 2006?
Again, remains to be seen, with the probability of enforcement increasing and legalization decresing as time goes on.
It would be interesting to hear the opinions of other posters who are and have been on this board for years already.
What do you think of projections, which ones you support or do not and why?
Regards,
OldE </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
1.Not going to happen whatsoever much less an overturn of Roe V. Wade.
2. I think you go McCain mixed up with that representative from Colorado. I neither supsect McCain nor Palin to reduce legal immigration to the point of FAIR or Numbers USA want or desire. That also will not likely to happen unless the public educational system becomes similar to Korea or Japan.
3. If McCain is elected president, I think you might see a resurgence of the guest worker plan within the next 100 days if McCain takes office. I don't see the Republican Party controlling both houses when 2009 comes here."Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston MassacreComment
-
. THINK???? Thee Here and Now!!!!
"NEW"!!!!
. Roe V. Wade! 
. Live in Thee Now!!! Think In Thee Now!!! Forget The Past For Its Power Has Become Powerless In The New world!!!!
Adjust!!!! Integrate! Get Out Of Thee "BOX"!USC and Legal, Honest Immigrant Alike Must Fight Against Those That Deceive and Disrupt A Place Of Desirability! All Are Victims of Fraud, Both USC and Honest Immigrant Alike! The bad can and does make it more difficult for the good! Be careful who yComment
Comment