US Rep Duncan Hunter (Republic-CA) from CA’s 52nd District (East and North San Diego) calls for the deportation of native-born American citizens whose parents are or were undocumented immigrants.
This includes a few hundred thousand American military personnel.
This in violation of the US Constitution, and a slap to American Military personnel.
This was forwarded by a Retired Colonel and a Lt Colonel.
The Lt Colonel state,s, “I was at first skeptical of this news report, given that most Congressional Representatives are not in the habit of calling for the deportation of their constituents (and in Congressman Hunter’s case, a few hundred thousand American military personnel would be included in the group he wants to deport.) But the story is true (and you can see the video on Youtube, I watched it myself)”
He makes the statement at the 2 minute mark.
US Rep. Hunter made his comments at a “tea party” rally in the San Diego County city of Ramona over the weekend. You can see a video of his remarks above.
This is really a sad development. To have this level of pandering, which arises from bigotry, hate or ignorance, in complete disregard for our Constitution and settled law, and again against thousands who have fought, bled, or died for our country. Truly sad!
Francisco J. Barragan CPA, CIA
Served US Marines (1987 -1994)
Served CA Army National Guard (1994-1997)
Commander of a veterans organization
Just what part of I l l e g a l don’t you bleeding heart Liberals understand?
And what part of the Constitution don’t you understand, knuckledragging racist?
Oh, don’t tell me, I know – the 14th Amendment! Duh.
Just a question- if you don’t find the Cuban’s, Spanish a problem.. but many think that immigrants (illegal Immigrants) south of the border are a big problem is that racism??
Or is it just the truth???
And really -black activist’s, hispanic activist’s and just overall morons have watered the word racism down to nothing- I don’t really see being called a racist a problem.. It is SOOOOO over rated!
funny ho vern protects the constitution but doesnt want to protect our borders nor the rights of ARIZONA CITIZENS TO PASS THEIR OWN LAW .
“Just a question- if you don’t find the Cuban’s, Spanish a problem.. but many think that immigrants (illegal Immigrants) south of the border are a big problem is that racism??”
Here, Here, well spoken Michelle! Bleeding heart Democrat liberals see the South of the Border breed of illegal as a future voter but the Cubans and others, not so much. I agree that the way liberals use the word racist it’s lost all its meaning. I guess there are some folks who want to let Spike Lee and Vern define the word for them but I’d rather join the Michele camp on this one!
POST 6 AND MICHELL I AGREE WITH BOTH OF YOU .we cant let the far left verns of the world win this war . of course they want the illegals , they want them here for their votes . most have no skills, they are poor , so they will vote for the party that gives them the most handouts .
To do what he proposed would take a constitutional amendment. Anyone born here to someone here without papers is a citizen under the United States Constitution. You cannot deport citizens.
Yeah great idea, amend the constitution to allow deportation of Citizens. Sounds like a Nazi idea. What right gets canceled next? Perhaps freedom of Speech, the right to bear arms, freedom of religion, what goes next?
Who determines which citizens? What happens if someone who does not like you gets to make that determination, still supporting the idea?
Can you say the end of the country and democracy? Pass something like this and that is exactly what we are going to do in a short short time. We certainly would not be allow to discuss things like this anymore.
Citizens regardless are not illegal at any time, regardless of age, race, color, etc.
Deport troops!!! Are you all going mad? Are you going to go take thier place? Who’s children shall we draft to make up for this insanity?
The fact is, if Congressman Hunter spent a little more time actually doing his job (and maybe got some of his fellow Californians to join him) this would not be an issue.
But Like Daryll Issa, Duncan Hunter Sr. and Randy Cunningham the road from San Diego to Washington is paved with corruption.
The rest of this just does’nt matter, it’s like a smoke screen.
Its a slap to the face of ALL military personnel, and any others who have taken an oath to defend and uphold the constitution. To suggest that we subvert the constitutional process of law is treason.
Quinn, the great one and others are arguing the deportation of USA citizens. The anti immigration argument has evolved from deportation of illegal immigrants to deportation of USA citizens decendant from illegal immigrants.
Under the same breath they say our argument is not racist……REALY11111
These Tea Party types are completely exposing themselves as they become frustrated and desperate due to the majority of America not listening to there propaganda.
They paint themselves as patriots while suggesting and supporting violating the US Constitution. This is why they deserve no credebility and should be considered moraly dishonest.
“—–in complete disregard for our Constitution and settled law”.
Don’t be so sure it would be in conflict with the Constitution. For one thing there are conflicting legal opinions on whether such children are really U.S. citizens. And as for the term “settled law” there is no such thing – our laws are moving targets that are interpreted differently at different times by our courts. Everything is fluid.
Older than,
Please cite the conflicting legal opinions.
“settled law” there is no such thing – our laws are moving targets that are interpreted differently at different times by our courts. Everything is fluid.”
I was/am not aware this occurring. Please give those ignorant like I examples.
Mr. Lomeli, good try at your usual effort to discredit posters and their opinions. I’ve been there before with you. My response is you first – if you wish to challenge those statements state your authorities so that everyone can benefit from your wisdom. Otherwise, IGGY.
Older than,
What is IGGY?
Following your logic I can then state that all residents born in the USA are citizens. Now you disprove that.
“Mr. Lomeli, good try at your usual effort to discredit posters and their opinions.”
You statement then is just your opinion. OK, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Michelle seems to have had her heart broken by a Latino.
“For one thing there are conflicting legal opinions on whether such children are really U.S. citizens”
This is so absurd it deserves to be smacked upside the head. THERE ARE NO conflicting legal opinions about the bona fides of citizenship for those born on American soil.
What Art was asking you for was something along the lines of precedent. Of course your answer reflects the fact that you have no knowledge of how the law works. That argument of yours i.e. – “if you wish to challenge those statements state your authorities” – tells me all I need to know about your understanding of either civics or the law.
His AUTHORITY, genius, is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Specifically the part that says:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I know you live in a world where you think everything is relative, and I’m sure you blame the liberals for that. But take my word for it, no court or no judge is just going to summarily and capriciously decide to try and yank the citizenship of someone born on American soil – particularly those whose only offense was to have parents born somewhere else.
So good luck with telling our soldiers that they need to give back their passports, because their parents were not worthy. I’m sure that will go over well.
If a foreign diplomate come to this US and has a child in the US, he/she is not considered a US citizen! It makes total sense to me!
If you are born here and both you’re parents are not only citizens, but actually illegal – NO you should not be considered a US citizen!
From what happen in the Oak Park school with the Mexican youth wanting the AMERICAN kids to be suspended for wearing the AMERICAN flag on the tea shirts on AMERICAN soil , I do not think they consider themselves American either!
As far as latino’s breaking my heart, yes, every welfare cheque that an illegal immigrant gets for boring children in this county, is breaking my heart and most of our wallets, especially in California.
I laughed at the Meg add talking about only 22% of welfare recipients work for welfare. She was going to change that!
Meg, what are you going to do, hand out Green Cards?
So ridiculous!
For skeptics such as Mr. Lomeli and WW who doubt there are differing legal opinions regarding the issue of US citizenship by birth: I suggest the testimony of Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law before the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on September 29, 2005 would be of interest. You can reach that by going to this site and scrolling down to No. 9 and clicking on it:
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
Without comment of my opinion on the merits of his views, I submit this information as but one example that there are differing legal interpretations on the subject, thereby validating my statement to that effect.
Reading the information on this site on this topic will also show that the interpretation of the 14th amendment, and thus law, has changed over time, thereby proving my point that law is fluid.
Looks like in the opinion of some quoted at this site that this issue is not yet resolved because the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of whether children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents are U.S. Citizens. So stay tuned to see if and when the Supreme Court is called upon to rule on what the words “completely subject” to the jurisdiction of the United States, as apparently stated in the 14h amendment, means. Study of the issue will find that there are those, some of whom are legal scholars, who believe undocumented immigrants are not “completely subject” and thus any offspring born here are not citizens.
You doubters may enjoy reading some of the other material on the same site. I rest my case. Have a nice day.
Jesus you are stupid. You really don’t know much about the law, do you? What you provide is not a “legal opinion.” A legal opinion is a legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision reached by a particular court.
What you provide is Congressional testimony, by a right-wing nut job who is in a small minority as to the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It has absolutely no bearing or relevancy to case law or precedent. It has about as much legal relevancy to your argument as Orly Taitz’s “legal opinion” of Obama’s citizenship.
Moreover, if you had actually read down a little further you would see where Eastman says, “Legal experts disagree as to whether a constitutional amendment or a Federal statute is needed to eliminate birth citizenship.” What this means, for you that don’t speak English (this is you Quinn), is that there is a (small) group of people who think the federal law pursuant to nationals and citizens at the time of birth in the United States (8 U.S.C. § 1401) can be changed without a constitutional change to the 14th amendment.
The fact that he cites no cases to directly support his position tells us more than what he actually says. Indeed, I can give you several cases (i.e. INS v. Rios-Pineda) where the Supreme Court in dicta has assumed that children of illegal aliens born in the US are in fact citizens.
And finally, I saved the last for you Quinn. Your lack of even juvenile analytical reasoning is frightful. The reason that if a “foreign diplomate [sic] come to this US and has a child in the US, he/she is not considered a US citizen” is because of the clause in the 14th Amendment that says, “AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF.” Diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of American laws because they have diplomatic immunity . . . . but illegal aliens certainly are subject to this jurisdiction! And you people will ensure that this continues to be the case. DON’T YOU SEE THE IRONY HERE!!!
Thank God people like you will never be allowed near a courtroom, unless you are defendants.
@WW:
Thanks for that last “golden nugget”…”Thank God people like you will never be allowed near a courtroom, unless you are defendants.”
I read Eastman’s testimony , and OTS link at #20…and they are splitting hairs…
I also agree with your comments…and I see the irony…those opposed to illegal immigration reform keep emphasizing that all illegals are subject to the law, and therefore the Illegal Parents of a Natural Born US citizen, are subject to the jurisdiction of American law.
Furthermore, if you read closely the question as to whether the CONSTITUTION is Supreme or a Congressional Act (federal act/legislation) HAS BEEN ADDRESSED, but Eastman, conveniently IGNORED that. [AN ACT OF CONGRESS, THE MAJORITY HELD, DOES NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION]
ADDITIONALLY
IT HAS BEEN SETTLED LAW since 1898 that those born in the US even if born to ILLEGAL/unauthorized immigrant parents are US Citizens by virtue of their birth in the US. And in general, when the parents’ status applies and that their child would not be automatically US Natural born citizens, would be if the parents were serving in an official capacity for a foreign government, or if they were members of foreign forces engaged in hostile occupation against the US.
QUOTE:
“United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about what determines United States citizenship.
SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) Ruled In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, according to the court’s majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory. The majority held that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[4]) – and that since none of these conditions applied to Wong’s situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact that “…during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China”.
Since Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. [AN ACT OF CONGRESS, THE MAJORITY HELD, DOES NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION]; such a law “cannot control [the Constitution’s] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in [SUBORDINATION] to its provisions.”
Furthermore, in further ruling Wong Kim Ark was also cited in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), a Supreme Court decision which struck down a Texas state law that had sought to deny public education to undocumented alien children (i.e., children born abroad who had come to the United States illegally along with their parents — not children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents).
The court’s majority opinion in Plyler said that, according to the Wong court, the 14th Amendment’s phrases “[SUBJECT TO] the jurisdiction thereof” and “[WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION]” [WERE ESSENTIALLY EQUIVALENT] and that [BOTH REFERRED PRIMARILY TO PHYSICAL PRESENCE].
It held that illegal immigrants residing in a state are “within the jurisdiction” of that state, [AND ADDED] in a footnote that “[NO PLAUSIBLE DISTINCTION] with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ [CAN BE DRAWN] between resident aliens [WHOSE ENTRY] into the United States was LAWFUL, and resident ALIENS WHOSE ENTRY WAS UNLAWFUL.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=457&page=202#f10
Unfortunately for Michelle Q and others, the response that they use rather than engaging in critical/analytical and objective reading seems to be…well all that is just “Gibberish”…while they try to be dismissive, and in support of flawed laws like Arizona’s SB1070, or while they try to pursue other Unconstitutional ideas.
LASTLY, another avenue that they seem to be pursuing is that of denying citizenship by attempting to deny it at the State level, but as the 14th amendment reads and which you quoted.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
Francisco “Paco” Barragan
Orange County
Francisco,
Pretty sharp.
Now, if I were working for the other side (which I would never do as long as I have a soul), I would be taking a long look at US v. Wong Kim Ark insofar as his parents had established “permanent domicile and residence.” You can bet that some people are itching to get a shot at this ruling by arguing that it does not address explicitly the question of parents who have not established legal permanent domicile and/or residence.
I think they have an uphill battle, but if it were me, I’d start there.
WW and Francisco – I appreciate the dialogue – other than WW feeling it necessary to throw in a personal insult or two. As for the definition of a legal opinion, I am a lay person (Neither an attorney nor in any way associated with the legal profession) and coming not from the standpoint of a written and documented statement of legal analysis based upon cited case law (The definition of Legal Opinion that you apparently are using here), but rather the stated analysis of one or more attorneys. To me, if an attorney states a view about a law, that is a legal opinion, right or wrong. Other than that clarification of my perspective, my only objective here was to try and prove to Mr. Lomeli that there are differing views by attorneys as to what the 14th Amendment means on this topic and that the interpretation of a law does sometimes change over time, making nothing absolute. I think I have achieved that. The topic of whether these kids are or are not U.S. citizens was not the point of my post, but even so it turned into an intersting discussion (for the most part, personal insults by WW aside.) I close with a question not intended to insult – are either of you attorneys? Your writings (minus the personal insults of WW)lead me to think that perhaps you are.
Older than, I’m not an attorney either, and I had a bad feeling when you waded into this saying “there are legal opinions,” and then quoting one extremist from Chapman.
There are thousands of attorneys in the country, and many of them are real screwballs. Orly Taitz is an attorney.
Kudos on the final graceful comment.
Thanks, Vern. I am a believer that civil discussion accomplishes more than discussion containing slings and arrows, though sometimes in here it is hard to do. By the way, my name is not Jesus either. (Response No. 21)
“means, for you that don’t speak English (this is you Quinn), is that there is a (small) group of people who think the federal law pursuant to nationals and citizens at the time of birth in the United States (8 U.S.C. § 1401) can be changed without a constitutional change to the 14th amendment.”
Mq says:
If i don’t speak English, then one would assume that I do not write in English either…So why are you berating me in ENGLISH…”Your lack of even juvenile analytical reasoning is frightful”. Really, I assumed you speak English, because you are writing in English. Just an observation!
I am also well aware that Pro-illegal immigrant activist’s leave the below little tit bit out of the 14th amendment when they rant about the 14th amendment
AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF.
WW.. Don’t get so mad, you cannot always be right!
Arizona had to implement a law to help implement the law that the Federal government continues to ignore. They did what the needed to do to protect American Citizens. Right now the Federal Government and some Courts seem to be a bit confused about which laws they should enforce because it conflicts with their ideology of Social Justice!
The federal government has become a confused Robin Hood and the Court judges have become the Merry Men/women!
So sit and spin on that one:P
@Older than,
Look, I don’t get insulting until people get sanctimonious. Contrary to the empirical relativism of the right, I do believe some things are simply “facts.” Cigarettes cause cancer, we did land on the moon – that type of thing. So when you say, emphatically, that I “doubt there are differing legal opinions regarding the issue of US citizenship by birth,” I see that as a sign of someone that is either 1) delusional, or 2) so blinded by ideology that they have confused what they believe with what is real. These types of people – be they on the left or on the right, are dangerous. We should not suffer them lightly.
In light of your response, however, I can see that you were being earnest, if a little uninformed, so I am sorry if my comments hurt. My intention was more rhetorical than personal, but that makes little difference when you feel slighted. I’ll pay more attention to that in the future here on this board.
As for Quinn, well, I really don’t know what to say. I can’t make heads or tails of your response. I was simply pointing out the fallacy in your analogy of equating illegal immigrants with the children of diplomats. The latter do not received citizenship because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of US laws, while the former certainly are. You seemed to have missed this entirely. Don’t worry though, you are still my favorite. Readings your posts are like trying to figure out the rebuses on the bottom of Lucky Lager caps.
@24 & @26 OT:
I am NOT an Attorney, and I have not worked, nor do I work in the legal profession.
I have worked alongside attorneys though from the business side, especially as it pertains to governance and compliance issues in business, or in restructuring international business operations.
Contrary to popular opinion, (that because I am a “Latino/Hispanic/Mexican Activist”, or an “Elitist” that I might be “too close” to an issue to be objective) I prefer to be objective about an issue, and start from there, and learn from others. I find I learn more if someone helps me challenge my own assumptions about an issue.
My Analytical focus and training comes from my profession (I am a professional Auditor; I have been the Chief Audit Executive in four companies), and from my “personal DNA”…I let the facts guide me.
I think that people who are sincere about an issue can be just as intelligent about an issue, than an “expert”. But for this to be possible, it requires for “personal blinders” and personal agendas to come off.
I accept that some people make decisions based on Reason or Facts and some on Emotion. And I can accept that they make their decision on emotion because of philosophical differences. However, I have a problem when people try to pass off their opinions as facts, or if they want to impose their personal agendas to the rest of us, especially if they do so by and are motivated by racism, bigotry, or hate, and do so while they are trampling on our Constitutional values and principles.
P.S.:
I got a big chuckle from your comment, “By the way, my name is not Jesus either. (Response No. 21)…that was funny!!!
Francisco “Paco” Barragan
my opinions only and not those of any group
My Professional Profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/franciscobarragancpacia
@WW #23:
Thanks for the kind words! I learn from reading your posts…thank you!
1) I agree with you. When I was reading up on this, I noticed that “permanent domicile and residence” could be open for interpretation.
2) Does “permanent domicile and residence” get established by Time or some Qualitative factors.
TIME: A day; a week; a 30-day lease; 3 months; 6 months etc.
QUALITATIVE: Is it Intent to establish permanent residence? Is it Family relations present already present? Or is it based more on personally Living; Working; or forming and running a business?
Is “Living” etc, or any other criteria sufficient in and of itself, or does it require a combination?
Questions can go on and on…but I agree this is open to interpretation.
Francisco “Paco” Barragan