Dienstag, 7. Dezember 2010

14th Amendment

"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.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
This amendment showed that black people are citizens of this country now if they have been born here. Therefore their would be counted as a member of the state and not only as a person. Nevertheless, it also denies the right to vote to felons forever which I think is totally wrong. There might not be something like resocialization, but the felons who are out of prison have served their term and therefore redeemed what they have done. To take away any right from them may it be the right to vote and therefore participate in ahaping this country or another right is ethically wrong to me. They are still citizens and should be treted as such.

"14th Amendment: why birthright citizenship change 'can't be done'

A new amendment to address citizenship issues would be tough in today’s polarized environment. Some say that legislation related to the 14th Amendment is the answer, but that would be hard, too.

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / August 10, 2010
Washington“Birthright citizenship” – the policy of granting US citizenship to every child born on US soil – may be one of the hottest political issues of the summer. In recent weeks, some congressional Republicans have become increasingly vocal about their desire to deny such recognition to the children of illegal immigrants, saying it is a lure that draws foreigners to sneak into the country.
However, as a practical matter, changing this policy would be extremely difficult. That’s because it is in the Constitution – or, rather, it is based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment begins this way: “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.”
Passage of a new constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds “aye” vote in the House and Senate, plus the approval of the legislatures of three-quarters of the 50 states. In today’s polarized political environment, it is hard to envision that happening.
Some proponents of changing the citizenship rules argue that their purpose can be accomplished with legislation. That might be a little easier to get through Congress – but it would almost certainly be vetoed by President Obama while he remains in office. Even if a future GOP chief executive signed such a bill, it would face inevitable close federal court review.
“Politically it can’t be done, and it is simply a distraction from seeking true immigration reform,” argued Bill Ong Hing, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law and supporter of birthright citizenship, in a recent conference call with reporters.
The issue itself is not a newcomer to Washington. Bills to deny citizenship to the children of parents in the US illegally have been introduced in Congress with regularity in recent years.
But this year, a number of top GOP lawmakers have said they would support at least exploring limits on the 14th Amendment. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina said recently on Fox News that he was thinking of introducing a proposed constitutional amendment because birthright citizenship is a magnet drawing illegals into the US.
Birthright citizenship “attracts people here for all the wrong reasons,” Senator Graham said.
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky, Sen. Jon Kyl (R) of Arizona, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama, and Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona have said they would be in favor of looking at the issue via hearings. So has House minority leader John Boehner (R) of Ohio.
“In certain parts of our country, clearly, our schools, our hospitals are being overrun by illegal immigrants, a lot of whom came here just so their children could become US citizens,” said Representative Boehner on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.
Proponents of changing US citizenship policies say that “birth tourism,” in which travel firms in China, Turkey, and elsewhere sell travel packages designed to allow pregnant women to give birth in the US, is a troubling new element. Legislation, they say, is all that’s needed to change the situation.
The drafters of the 14th Amendment never intended that it should apply to the children of foreigners present in the US, they say. It was meant to extend citizenship to African-Americans. Legislation could clarify this situation, say some conservatives.
But supporters of birthright citizenship say that that reading of the history of the 14th Amendment is untrue and that to alter the policy would be to alter the nation’s democratic character.
“Those who want to repeal the 14th Amendment threaten core constitutional values,” said Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center, in a conference call."
Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0810/14th-Amendment-why-birthright-citizenship-change-can-t-be-done

This article to me is a little biased and the arguments are a little exagerated to me. It has been an important step in the history to grant citizenship to the black people. Still, the constitution is a living document as we know. It seems ridiculous to change the 14th amendment as it must seem to any black person as an assault towards them personally. On the other hand I understand that it is an issue with immigrants having their children in the US. I do not think there are many countries in the world that give you the citizenship if you were born in that country. In many states it depends on the nationality of the parents and where they are permanently living. So there has to be found a solution that does explicitly not attack the historical birthright of African Americans, but that helps in keeping this new form of tourism down.


This kind of cynic video does bring together the important points of the long path to equality of the black people. And maybe the cynism makes people think about some issues that they would have not thought about in this way before. It still is a journalistic stylistic device.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen