Re: Gavin Newsom bans San Francisco Workes to travel to Arizona b/c of Immigration La
Respectfully, I call B.S. It's up to every American to carry identification. When was the last time you got pulled over, said "sorry, Officer, carrying a license in a huge burden I don't want to deal with?" and get away with it? And it wasn't just the Jews who were asked for their papers--it was the Jews who were sent to concentration camp if their papers said "Jewish". If your papers said "German, from Dusseldorf", you went on your way.
I'm not a lawyer and will defer to better understanding here, but I was under the impression that Section 1 of 14th Amendment stated that "all persons subject to the jurisdiction (of the US)... are citizens of the US and the state they reside." Persons here legally are citizens, or have visas. My green-card-carrying grandmother can't vote, but she's represented. A convicted felon cannot vote, but is represented. Per Section 2, an "Indian not taxed" (i.e., someone who was still a member of the reservation Nation they were affiliated with--and who I'm making the modern-day analogy of an illegal to) was not represented by Congress.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution reads: "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
So it is CITIZENSHIP that the government should regulate, and this is consistent with my position. Which is that people should be free to come and go, but we can set the bar really high or establish pretty much any rules we want when it comes to allowing people to become citizens.
A PERSON is someone who's here who's not a citizen. Like a citizen of france who's here visiting (on a visa, whatever). What makes the status of a Person special is the protection of our laws. You can't go out and murder that french person and get away with it - he is protected against that crime by our laws just as a citizen is. Similarly, if the french person commits murder, he is entitled to a trial by jury, speedy trial, due process, etc.
I think you misquote the 14th amendment. It actually reads:
Section 1. 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.
So as far as I'm concerned, Mexicans who are here are just that, Mexicans (citizens of Mexico) - they are not BORN here. As far as our laws are concerned, they are entitled to equal protection under the law. Singling out a class of person (or citizen) for unfair treatment is egregious.
However, if a pregnant Mexican woman has her child born here, the child is a citizen and may be a Mexican citizen (dual citizenship) as well. The latter being determined by Mexico's laws regarding citizenship. And there's the rub. If you insist that people here without visas must be sent back, what are you going to do with their children who are citizens?
