Dec. 29, 2005 - 17:06 MST

CHANGE THE DIAPER

A troubling subject here lately is the citizenship determination. There is an editorial in the Rocky Mountain News today that deals with this very subject in a sensible way, I think. Quoted in full:

CONSTITUTION'S LANGUAGE MEANS WHAT IT SAYS

Don't end-run 14th Amendment

"For almost 140 years, the 14th Amendment has been presumed to grant U.S. citizenship to anyone born here except the children of foreign diplomats."

" But now there's an effort in Congress, supported by Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, that would remove the right for the children of illegal immigrants -- not by amending the Constitution, but by passing a bill."

"It may in fact be time to address birthright citizenship, but we don't believe it can be done by legislation. If you're going to tamper with the Constitution, you've got to do it the hard way. You pass an amendment. If Congress tries to revise the Constitution through legislation, it is no different from "activist judges" some members complain about."

"Here's what the 14th Amendment 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."

"Proposed in June 1866, a year after the Civil War, and ratified by July 1868, it was designed to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's egregrious Dred Scott ruling of 1857, which held that slaves were not and couldn't become citizens. The main Supreme Court decision applying the doctrine to all persons born here was the Wong Kim Ark ruling of 1898, which said the child of Chinese immigrants -- themselves not at that time even elegible for citizenship -- could be a citizen by virtue of his birth here. After all, even though the amendment may have been inspired by the slaves' status, it doesn't specifically refer to them. Others born here are just as eligible because they are clearly "subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States."

"Tancredo argues differently on his Web site. He claims the drafters never intended to confer citizenship on the children of illegal immigrants and that mere physical presence in the land doesn't necessarilly make a child subject to U.S. jurisdiction."

"Perhaps the amendment's authors would agree with Tancredo if they could pipe up today. but of course they can't. The key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" exempts only diplomatic personnel, who are not subject to U.S. laws."

"For that matter, maybe the amendment does in fact creat a "perverse incentive" for people to sneak into the U.S. and have children, as Tancredo argues. But language is language."

"Tancredo has suggested putting the measure changing the 14th amendment's meaning in a broader bill that Congress wouldn't dare turn down. That is a common but shameless congressional tactic."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A common tactic, putting something like that into a bill needed for the survival of our country -- something Congress would not dare fail to pass. Reprehensible to the extreme and all too common.

And the argument that those who came before us and have long been dead didn't mean what they wrote or didn't mean to include yadda, yadda, is despicable.

I'm thinking it all bears on the human nature of wanting to have things both ways. To have the cheap labor of non-citizens and not have to extend the aid that citizens have. And I think we are all guilty to a certain extent. If the labor put out by illegals is cut off, the prices of our things will go up. Citizens will demand and get fair wages for their labor and thus cost goes up. But there is a good side to that though. I think that if things are ever put straight wages and prices will adjust, even though the egregrious profits of corporations and industry go down a bit.

It is a fact that corporations and industry keep preaching that they can't compete, guess who is making billions every year ? Who is benefitting from all those humongus tax breaks ? And why haven't laws been passed in our country to prevent corporations and industry from outsourcing work to other countries ? ?

Society seems to be skewed now to the point that I wonder if things will ever be "normal" again.

It used to be that only agricultural wages were low to the point that illegals could work for them, live in abject privation and survive under the fear of being turned in to Immigration authorities, so that we had to pay less for food. (which wasn't fair then)

For some number of years, Immigration services have been shortchanged, staffs cut and upper echelon philosophy diluted.

As long as we are passing laws, why not pass a law in this country that EVERYONE must be paid the prevailing wage in that state and city ? ? ? ? ? Legal or illegal -- pay the same. Why not pass laws restricting corporations and industry from putting work overseas ? ? ? ?

In my mind illegal labor has put the wages of construction workers to such a low point that the citizens of this country cannot work for those wages.

So we plod along, doing very little to address this vital situation, Mr. Bush wants guest workers, Mr. Tancredo wants to change the Constitution. Mr. Bush sees that taxes are lowered to the advantage of the rich. No control is exerted over shipping our work overseas.

We seem to not pay attention to the laws we have, but mill around trying to pass isht to control situations that shouldn't exist.

The right of citizenship to those born in this country was made an amendment for a very good reason, a good and fair reason. I don't think that amendment should be changed in any way -- ever. It is true that there are many things that should be changed in our country. Our country is, still in the world a baby. A big one, a strong one, and a spoiled one it would seem. But adjust the diet, and don't change the baby, CHANGE THE DIAPER . . . . . . . . . .

Blog