The Keeper wrote:

Wren wrote:

You can look up the polls, and you will find they generally state what I summed up. And, OF COURSE, I may state this, silly boy.

If you folks believe eviscerating the 14th Amendment will lead to your desired results, you are ignoring the fact that you will get the majoritarian police state of which you are frightened.

The 14th Amendment protects all citizens, you, me, Butler, and birthright citizens.

But, OF COURSE, you have no hope of amending it, because the Constitution decides how to amend it, not you, not Congress, not me.

You seem to be stuck in replay mode about he 14th Amendment being a "silver bullet" for immigration. You're the only one to arguing that angle. The Supreme Court has already stated that mere birth does not subject one to the jurisdiction of the United States. "THE PHRASE "SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION" RELATES TO TIME OF BIRTH, and one not owing ALLEGIANCE AT BIRTH cannot become a citizen save by subsequent naturalization, individually or collectively. The words do not mean merely geographical location, but "COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION.' Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 102 (1884). (emphasis added)

Why are you talking about amending when Bush and his cronies just ignore the Constitution! You can still get your police state from some trumped up state of emergency.


Someday you or your cronies will have to hire a lawyer. Then perhaps you will learn the difference between the "holding" in a judicial decision and "obiter dicta."

The name of the petitioner in this case (Elk) made me wonder, and a glance at the first line of the case report answers the question:

"This is an action brought by an Indian, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska . . ."

So, this relates to citizenship rights of Indians, who have always been treated as sui generis under the Constitution. That you would cite this case in favor of your mistaken view of the 14th Amendment suggests either that you have never received any legal training or that you are deliberately attempting to deceive.

This case is about the citizenship rights of an Indian in 1880 in Nebraska, and suggesting that it says something about persons born in the U.S. today to immigrant parents is either disingenuous or dishonest.

This language from the opinion is instructive:

"Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations."

The Court thus puts three categories of persons outside the realm of citizens:

1. Indians, even if born within the geographical limits of the U.S.;
2. Children of subjects of a foreign government who are born outside the U.S.; and
3. Children born within the United States to ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obviously, the children of other persons within the U.S. (whether in legal immigrant status or not) do not fit within any of these categories.

Recent quotes from Buttler:

Butt1: "Changing the 14th amendment would not persuade people not to come to the U.S. Nor would it persuade people to leave."

Butt2: "Actually, they {the Bradshaws} feel very lucky that they were able to immigrate to the U.S. and they wish all who desire to do so could find a way to obtain the same benefits of residency and citizenship that they have."

Butt3: "The {the Bradshaws} certainly don't think that people seeking a better life here are criminals just because they overstayed their visas."

Recent quotes from Wren:

Wren1: "The polls continually state that a solid majority of citizens support birthright citizenship and no changing of the 14th Amendment."

Wren2: "You can look up the polls, and you will find they generally state what I summed up."

Wren3: "Butler is right that "changing the 14th amendment" is not going to stop people from coming to the US. And the main point is this -- the overwhelming majority of citizens and the legislatures have absolutely no interest in changing it."

Wren4: "Since the 14th Amendment likely will not be changed anytime in the near or far future,...."

Questions regarding the above quotes:

Butt1: You make two blanket statements as if they were somehow a truth to be accepted without question. Please show us your sources for such a statement - or admit that they are just assumptions on your part.

Butt2: You make a blanket statement as if it was somehow a truth to be accepted without question. Please show us your sources for such a statement - or admit that it is just an assumption on your part.

Butt3: You make a blanket statement as if it was somehow a truth to be accepted without question. Please show us your sources for such a statement - or admit that it is just an assumption on your part.

Wren1: You make a blanket statement as if it was somehow a truth to be accepted without question. Please show us your sources for such a statement - or admit that it is just an assumption on your part.

Wren2: You make a blanket statement as if it was somehow a truth to be accepted without question. Please show us your sources for such a statement - or admit that it is just an assumption on your part.


Wren3: You make three blanket statements as if they were somehow a truth to be accepted without question. Please show us your sources for such a statement - or admit that they are just assumptions on your part.

Wren4: You make a blanket statement as if it was somehow a truth to be accepted without question. Please show us your sources for such a statement - or admit that it is just an assumption on your part.

You have ONLY two options:

1) Ignore my challenges to these blanket statements and thereby admit by default that you are just full of BS,

or

2) Provide creditable, citable evidence to back up your statements.

Thank you in advance for EITHER of the above options....

Learn to spell and learn to question without being rude, Russ, and I'll consider responding to your questions.

M Butler wrote:

Learn to spell and learn to question without being rude, Russ, and I'll consider responding to your questions.


Russ wants us to do what he does not do.

The 14th Amendment will not be changed, thus no need exists to debate the question. The Congress can't change it on its own, for the Constitution prevents, thus no need exists to debate the question.

The immigrants are not going home. The great majority have already made the US their home, many with children as birthright citizens.

How to fix the problems:

(1) secure the borders;

(2) make Big Businesspart of the solution instead of the problem;

(3) begin a guest worker program that leads eventually to naturalization.

M. Butler, you do good work.

M Butler wrote:

Learn to spell and learn to question without being rude, Russ, and I'll consider responding to your questions.


Hmmm? I personally didn't see any spelling mistakes he has made, so you need to enlighten us about what concerns you in Russ's last post. I only saw quotes and a simple question that could have easily answered, assuming you actually have answers that is. I also don't see that he is being any more rude than many of your own posts in the past.

Apparently, you have intentionally choosen his option 1. Really, he is correct, there is only two options that you have. If you are not going to answer his concerns, you have, as he said, chosen option 1.

In that you have, I would suggest you just stand down.

Wren wrote:

M Butler wrote:

Learn to spell and learn to question without being rude, Russ, and I'll consider responding to your questions.


Russ wants us to do what he does not do.

The 14th Amendment will not be changed, thus no need exists to debate the question. The Congress can't change it on its own, for the Constitution prevents, thus no need exists to debate the question.

The immigrants are not going home. The great majority have already made the US their home, many with children as birthright citizens.

How to fix the problems:

(1) secure the borders;

(2) make Big Businesspart of the solution instead of the problem;

(3) begin a guest worker program that leads eventually to naturalization.

M. Butler, you do good work.


Whether right or wrong, didn't he post polls that verified his statement? Have you?

He asked for you to back up your claims. I see little evidence of you being willing to do that. I will advise you the same as Buttler, either put up - or shut up. Provide the sources for your wild claims, or just go away.

He is right...you and Buttler have both decided to be evasive, intentionally making claims about stats & such, and seem totally unwilling to back them up. You, along with Buttler, have chosen his option number 1. Refusal to provide source material for your claims puts you both in the crackpot, windbag, category.

About the 14th: The thought occurred to me that citizenship for the child is actually a benefit for the parents that we presently grant. I am totally against ANY benefits to the criminal illegal alien. Therefore, I will be supporting the present congressional effort being made to change that court ruling. Which, by the way, if congress chooses to pass the bill, the previous court decisions in the 1800's attempting to deal with the children of slaves will no longer be valid.