And on that note:

23% of children born in 2002 to immigrants:

http://www.c.hron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3257469 (Remove period after c, for some reason the software hates that newspaper. heh)

There are over 400,000 illegal immigrants in Houston alone, and thanks to the "sanctuary policy" they police cannot ask someone's resident status, and you know, enforce the damn law. It's a real mess.

The law will never change, but there are dozens of tales of pregnant women dying in the desert to get to the US to have thier kids. Once they do that, in come the US gov't money

Next time you are at the airport kill a little time people watching at the jetways for international arrivals from the far-east, central/South America and Mexico. Count the number of women in late pregnancy getting off the flights. Just another avenue.

Miss Malkin got it right with her first book's title: Invasion

Ignored? Suppose Howard had said that the Clause "will not, of course, include persons born in the US to those named 'Ace."

His subjective intent--even as the author of the clause--is not binding. The clause must be based on (1) the plain meaning of the words; (2) as they were understood at the time.

If the clause says X but according to those that passed it "REALLY means Y"--then tough titties, we go with X.

If they had wanted it to mean Y, they should have said so.

Moreover, suppose every other Senator that voted for the clause disagreed with Howard's view of what the clause meant and they intended it to include those born of aliens?

Whose intent controls?

I'm inclined the other way here. We're supposed to be a haven for the "wretched refuse... of teeming shores," and deporting a baby born on American soil because his parents have broken the law goes against my every grain.

But what's the alternative? Forcibly separating them from their families is harsh at first light. Could create an extremely powerful incentive to stop coming across our borders to give birth, though. Something to think about at any rate.

Still thinking about this, but right now I'm going with the old refrain: enforce the goddamn law. Do that, and this, along with a host of other problems, would quickly shrink to manageable proportions, even if they wouldn't entirely disappear.

The language seems pretty clear to me. If you are born in a foreign embassy, or your parents are here on official business of a foreign government, then you are not automatically a citizen despite being born here. All other instances of you being born here mean you're a citizen.

Read the previous statement, about not changing the current law.

If the current law, pre-14th A, was born here = citizen, why do people cite the 14thA for this proposition rather than the pre-14th A standing law?

We're supposed to be a haven for the "wretched refuse... of teeming shores," and deporting a baby born on American soil because his parents have broken the law goes against my every grain.

The poem by Emma Lazarus is cited by pro-immigration and Open Borders as if it was at the core of the Constitution...but in the end it is just a poem. Possibly agreeing with Megan again, - I like the poems noble aspirations but I'm fed up with the wretched refuse from Islam's teeming shores pouring in here, for starters. And for Mexicans and others spitting out anchor babies as a means of getting free education, welfare, and medical care not available in Mexico....sorry....that's Mexico's problem, not America's.

Aaaaaaahhhhhh... I love the smell of Cedarford letting loose his inner redneck.

It smells like... Victoria Tensing.

Spread-legged, tanned, wearing nothing but a saucy smile and looking like the cat who ate the canary.

I believe it's also the basis of the laws regarding dual citizenship (as I recall, it's damned hard to get citizenship elsewhere while keeping American citizenship, and of course the Loyalty Oath of naturalization includes renouncing loyalty to foreign powers).

For better or for worse, this is a matter of settled Constitutional law now, and the Supreme Court would have to overturn a long chain of cases to reverse course. Doing so would not have legitimacy among the American people.

The sad reality, as A.G. Gonzales has said, is that the Constitution iis what the Supreme Court says it is.

I don't like it, but in this case it is reality. A decision to the contrary would be the equivalent of the Dred Scott decisin in the eyes of most Americans.

Dogstar -

Just for your reading pleasure, heres the State Attorney of Florida's Inquiry Report, effectively closing out the Terri Schiavo Fiasco.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/08/Tampabay/Result_of_the_State_A.shtml

The report all but calls Jeb a pig-headed, religiously motivated dolt.

Thought you'd like it after your constant pasting of the 4 RTL nurses that swore affidavits in court - that proved Terri laughed, she talked, was beaten, broken and abused by Scott Peterson - and was as cognitive and aware as the average Right to Lifer (the last being true)

Cedarford, still a cocksucker. You forgot to mention the jews put Jeb up to it. You should start your own blog, so we can all troll you for a change.

Forgot to sign that last one, wouldn't want you to think I was your dad posting.

"The report all but calls Jeb a pig-headed, religiously motivated dolt."

Was that before ot after the part about Michael Schiavo being the second coming of Joan the Arc?

Seedy, honestly, you've got a LOT more invested than I, emotionally, in the killing of Terri Schiavo.

But if it makes you happy, I can call you a few names. Just let me know which way I should go- the fellatio angle, or the anti-Semetic. I'm easy.

Heh... That should "Joan OF Arc".

BE, dammit, BE!

Ok, that's it. It's obviously too late for me to still be doing this.

Ace: I suppose constitutional scholars know all about this, but how do they argue against what appears to be the clear meaning of the intent behind the clause?

Justices Scalia and Stevens seem to be aware of the problem. See Scalia's dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld implicitly questioning whether Yaser Hamdi is a U.S. citizen simply because he was born here.

Even so, Scalia would reject the argument that words uttered on the floor of the Senate by "no lesser authority than the man who drafted the Citizenship Clause himself" determine the meaning of the text.

DigitalBrownAsshole -

The beauty is knowing that the same people that were behind the 1965 Opening of the US Borders are the same people now considered the great enemy of millions of immigrant Muslims.

Every million more illegals means further diminishment in pro-Israel clout.

It hasn't been very good recently for Zionists in the department of winning friends and influencing people, has it DigitalBrownAsshole? Down to one vote left in the UN, unpopular in Australia, France, Canada, UK....support slipping in the US, Settlements outside Jerusalem eventually doomed. Must suck to be you.

Why does Cedardouche use so many words to say, "Jooooooooos bad!"

I'm thinking Cedarford* must have got some unwelcome Jewish cock in him at some point. That's the only thing that explains that kind of hate. He really likes the foreskin when he's going down.

*who is a cocksucker

DBS- Look at the bright side- Cedarford, for all his hostility, pays subtle tribute.

He could have gone with "AnalogBrown...", but he KNEW he didn't have the balls to make that leap.

Even when flaming, he betrays his respect and fear.

Seriously, Cedarford should get his own blog. I'd swing by everyday to slap him around in his own house. His impotent anger makes me feel good. I know that's wrong, but it feels so very, very good to picture him stewing in the dark of his parent's basement, thinking of some way to tie me to the global, Jewish conspiracy.

Or maybe he could just join Storm Front, they love guys like him.

DBS, actually Cedarford has admitted to having his own blog. He just won't tell anyone around here where it is. He knows we would troll it incessantly (assuming he allows comments). Considering the stuff he posts here, can you really imagine what he writes on his own site? And what he links to? Urk. No doubt he knows that he'd be banned everywhere.

Cedarford, don't hide your lamp under a bushe basketl. Tell us where your blog is so we can come and visit. I'll even blog roll you.

Should read "bushel basket" in last post. I got all excited about CF's blog and typed it in wrong.

Yeah, but Seedy's a lot of fun.

He's like our own little Cartman-always running in here to brag about the pubes he just bought.

DBS, you're wasting your time. He'll never do it. The JOOOOOS took his balls and he hates them - hates them forever. It's also why he'll never expose himself as he truly is. Plus, if he did, we would see his links to where he gets his talking points from, and then we would see who's really pulling his strings.

Great observation Enas. Its obvious our little troll has never had an original thought in his life (well, except the lies he likes to tell about being an MBA and a veteran). This is obvious because he has established a pattern; 1 - he posts his nonsense, 2 - somebody calls him on it, 3 - he launches the ad hominem instead of making a reasoned rebuttal because he really started the cycle by parroting someone else's thoughts. I personally think he's lying about having a blog.

One does have the fond hope of DigitalBrownAsshole, SpewFan, and Anus Yowl! volunteering to defend Israeli Settlements and put their asses instead of their mouths on the line.

But it won't happen, will it guys??

Why the global unpopularity guys? Why the diminishing support even in America, though Israel can still get it's way in Congress? Why are Evangelicals in the military rejecting Christian Zionism??

Could it be Zionists could benefit from a little less arrogant intransigence, a little less "how dare you" paranoid outrage to any criticism - and a little more focus on making friends in the world???

One does have the fond hope of DigitalBrownAsshole, SpewFan, and Anus Yowl! volunteering to defend Israeli Settlements and put their asses instead of their mouths on the line.
What an absolutely clever rejoinder Cedarford. Really made me question my manhood with that volley.

I couldn't find your blog, so I made my own, check it out.
Cedarford Sucks
I'm thinking it should be a anti-semite, pro-nambla site, but haven't decided for sure yet. Think of it as a fan site.

- and a little more focus on making friends in the world???
BTW, that last line makes it hard to believe you've ever been in the military. The world doesn't have much interest in making friends with us. The more you see of it, the less you'll believe that tripe.

We're supposed to be a haven for the "wretched refuse... of teeming shores," and deporting a baby born on American soil because his parents have broken the law goes against my every grain.

Give me a break. We are a mature country with limited resources. The Western frontier in need of homesteaders ended a hundred years ago. Manufacturing jobs are overseas. We need skills now related to literacy. Every country has a right to close or regulate immigration. Try squatting illegally in Mexico or Canada. We aren't chartered or directed by God to be the dumping ground for every failed country that won't provide better economics for their citizens. If and as we need immigrants we should damn well have the right to be selective as to whom they are.

And if that baby's parents are suspected Muslim terrorists all three stay because the baby can't leave?

Damn, I hate it when the 'douche ignores my taunts.

He skipped right over you on his way to the zionist trinity of dbs, brewfan and Enas Yor. Might be to worried about his new fan site to get down on you. I'm building a shrine to the genius of Cedarford, with appropriate links.

"We aren't chartered or directed by God to be the dumping ground for every failed country that won't provide better economics for their citizens."

I think we are. I think America's the messiah for the world, but maybe that's just me.

"And if that baby's parents are suspected Muslim terrorists all three stay because the baby can't leave?"

No. Like I said, in that case I would support separating the baby from its family, regardless of how politically inconvenient it might be.