Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    az.general    |    What goes on in exciting Arizona...    |    2,973 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 1,972 of 2,973    |
|    Rudy Canoza to All    |
|    Rethinking Birthright Citizenship (4/4)    |
|    05 Jan 15 08:33:02    |
      [continued from previous message]              expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people,       indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the       pursuit of happiness,” it necessarily rejected the feudal birthright       citizenship doctrine of medieval England as fundamentally incompatible       with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. As       Representative Woodward of Pennsylvania noted on the floor of the House       of Representatives: “It is high time that feudalism were driven from our       shores and eliminated from our law, and now is the time to declare it.”[35]              Such remnants of feudalism were rejected by our nation’s Founders when       they declared to a candid world that they no longer owed allegiance to       the king of their birth. They were rejected again by the Congress in       1866 and by the nation when it ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.              Reviving Congress’s Constitutional Power Over Naturalization              It is time for the courts, and for the political branches as well, to       revisit Justice Gray’s erroneous interpretation of the Citizenship       Clause, restoring to the constitutional mandate what its drafters       actually intended: that only a complete jurisdiction, of the kind that       brings with it a total and exclusive allegiance, is sufficient to       qualify for the grant of citizenship to which the people of the United       States actually consented.              Of course, Congress has in analogous contexts been hesitant to exercise       its own constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution in ways       contrary to the pronouncements of the courts. Even if that course is       warranted in most situations so as to avoid a constitutional conflict       with a co-equal branch of the government, it is not warranted here for       at least two reasons.              First, as the Supreme Court itself has repeatedly acknowledged,       Congress’s power over naturalization is “plenary,” while “judicial       power over immigration and naturalization is extremely limited.”[36]       While that recognition of plenary power does not permit Congress to dip       below the constitutional floor, it does counsel against any judicial       interpretation that provides a broader grant of citizenship than is       actually supported by the Constitution’s text.              Second, the gloss that has been placed on the Wong Kim Ark decision is       actually much broader than the actual holding of the case. Congress       should therefore adopt a narrow reading of the decision that does not       intrude on the plenary power of Congress in this area any more than the       actual holding of the case requires. Wong Kim Ark’s parents were       actually in this country both legally and permanently, yet were barred       from even pursuing citizenship (and renouncing their former allegiance)       by a treaty that closed that door to all Chinese immigrants. They were       therefore as fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as       they were legally permitted to be, and under those circumstances, it is       not a surprise that the Court would extend the Constitution’s grant of       birthright citizenship to their children. But the effort to read Wong       Kim Ark more broadly than that, as interpreting the Citizenship Clause       to confer birthright citizenship on the children of those not subject       to the full and sovereign (as opposed to territorial) jurisdiction of       the United States, not only ignores the text, history, and theory of the       Citizenship Clause, but also permits the Court to intrude upon a plenary       power assigned to Congress itself.              --              "America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to 'the common       good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own       personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes."              Ayn Rand              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca