home

Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 11:46:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Washington Post takes a well-deserved swipe at Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo Sunday. Tancredo is proposing that citizenship be denied to U.S. born children of undocumented residents. Apparently he has never read the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment begins: "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." Not "all persons except children of illegal immigrants," not "all persons except those Congress exempts in moments of nativism." All persons.

Tancredo's off the wall theory is that these children are similar to diplomats in that they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

The Post reminds Tancredo:

The Supreme Court rejected this thesis more than a century ago. "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States," the court wrote. Diplomats, as a consequence of the lack of jurisdiction Mr. Tancredo would extend to aliens, cannot be arrested or charged with crimes. Is that what Mr. Tancredo has in mind for illegal immigrants? Members of Congress ought not follow him on this ugly and fruitless path.

< A Wise Word to Democrats About Alito | U.S. Soldier Who Fled to Canada Gets Hearing >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson | 32 comments (32 topical)
    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    The attempt to deny the inherent citizenship of children born to "Illegal Immigrants" appears to me to be just another tatic that the Ultra-Rightwing Theocrats are using to reshape the American People into a more slavish Society. The attacks on Gays, Islamics, Muslims and other "likeminded" Minorities only shows how narrowly focused their concept of "acceptable" Citizens actually is. With the loss of Citizenship to "Enemy Combatants" now an assured thing, the Polictical Arm of the Government has started a pogrom; not seen since Germany during WW 2 ; of removing segments of the citizenry that either cannot or willnot comply with the "New Social Order" the Government is trying to achieve. by removing or denying their inherent right to be citizens of the United States the P.A. can efectively mode America into whatever shape it wants with little or no resistance.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    Welcome to The Slippery Slope. This is precisely the sort of nonsense that Americans will CONTINUE to see in Congress now that Congress has started tinkering around with the Constitution and the protections it USED TO afford to all of us. First stop, denial of habeas corpus. Next stop ...? Who knows where this evil empire is headed?

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    While children born here of foreign diplomats are not citizens, they are also immune from U.S. laws. Does Tancredo want that? Imagine the parking tickets they'd rack up!

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    Perhaps it's worth pointing out that, when the 14th amendment was passed, the U.S. was in the midst of a wave of immigration easily as immense in relative terms as we are experiencing today. As now, many of the immigrants were undocumented, and as now, there was mass hysteria regarding whether the American culture would withstand the influx of so many Catholics. Yet with immigration, legal and illegal, then very much on the horizon, the 14th amendment makes no explicit mention of immigration status of one's parents as a criterion for citizenship. And people who call themselves "textualists" or "originalists" would perhaps do better by pondering that omission, than by proffering non-obvious, fanciful readings of that amendment.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    The question I have is, under that wording, how are children of Diplomats excluded, unless they are born in the embassy (which is foreign soil)? Mind you, I don't really like Tancredo's idea; I suspect that the end result would be an underclass of "guest workers". Germany has had an ongoing problem with that.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    The question I have is, under that wording, how are children of Diplomats excluded, unless they are born in the embassy (which is foreign soil)?
    They are not excluded, Tancredo is simply opening his mouth and removing any doubt of his low level of intelligence. A friend of mine was the daughter of a UK embassy worker born here in the US. As such, she held triple citizenship: US, UK, and Irish National.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    It is really quite reassuring to see how quickly "living, breathing document" Constitutionalists when it concerns abortion or gun control or gay marriage become Constitutional literalists when it concerns protections for illegal immigration. Of course there is nothing to stand in the way of what Mr. Tancredo is proposing, it needs only be subjected to the democratic process of a Constitutional amendment to see what the people would decide. I'm curious how the bloggers here would feel about that? Also, I'm curious how the bloggers here would feel about this issue if all these illegal immigrants pouring over the border were voting Republican. But we'll never know. :)

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#8)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    I don't see any problem with changing the amendment, provided we make it retroactive to about 1788.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    it is illegal for non-citizens to vote, so that is about the stupidest strawman ever listed here. tancredo isn't sponsoring a constitutional amendment, he's sponsoring a law. he's attempting an end run around the constitution, not supporting it.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    RK-Do I hear an echo coming out of your cave?
    "living, breathing document" Constitutionalists when it concerns abortion or gun control or gay marriage become Constitutional literalists
    Your wingnut logic at work shows either how dumb you are or how dishonest you are. Let's see, how's this: 'Apple lovers show their true colors when they fail to eat crab apples.'

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    If Tancredo's reading prevails, doesn't this make for an awful lot of unprosecutable little gun-runners and drug mules?

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    The question I have is, under that wording, how are children of Diplomats excluded, unless they are born in the embassy (which is foreign soil)? They are not excluded, Tancredo is simply opening his mouth and removing any doubt of his low level of intelligence. They are excluded, due to international law that places them outside of our jurisdiction, and therefore outside of the clause in the Constitution that 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." HOWEVER, children born in the U.S. to Embassy workers below the highest levels of diplomats ARE NOT EXEMPT, just as they do not have full diplomatic immunity (they have a certain amount of qualified immunity). That makes for an interesting situation where the children of what are termed "foreign diplomatic officers" do not get the privilege of dual citizenship, whereas the janitor's kids do, and that creates a class of U.S. citizen who has certain immunities that the rest of us do not enjoy. (see 8 C.F.R. 101.3)

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    By the way, whenever I quote someone further up in the thread, I can never get that little pink bordered gray box to appear. Can someone tell me how to do that? Thanks!

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    rebmarks-<***>your quote here ***=blockquote TL urges us to use this prudently as bandwith is $$$.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    oops that did not work. eds please delete.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    Robert Kessler, If those immigrants were voting Republican, you wouldn't be saying anything. Your assumptions about them would be completely altered, as another set of paradigms and prejudices takes over.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    rebmarks - First highlight the words to be quoted. Then click on "Quote" above the comment box. The result will look like:
    Four score and seven years ago
    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    First highlight the words to be quoted. Then click on "Quote" above the comment box.
    Thanks JimakaPPJ. And you too, Squeaky, it's the thought that counts!

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    The WaPo's editorial is being eviscerated here. It's the WaPo that needs a history lesson.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    Ahh, bmb must be having a low hit count again. One lone wacko does not an evisceration make. Next!

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    BMB-we can tune to wingnut radio and do not need your help here. Eviscerated....? gosh you are delusional.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    I love Sailor's deliciously bizarre comment: "it is illegal for non-citizens to vote, so that is about the stupidest strawman ever listed here." It is a well known fact that illegal immigrants are voting, and voting almost exclusively Democrat, as instructed. But more importantly, here is a person objecting to the regulation of illegal immigrants, claiming that they don't vote because that would be illegal. Which is almost as funny as Dadler asserting that I would think differently if they were voting Republican, after my comment that HE would be thinking differently if they were voting Republican. :P

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    The bigger question is, why does the Left support illegal immigration? I understand why business supports it, but why the Left? Illegal immigration depresses wages even for the illegals that are already here! Can someone explain the Left's love affair with open borders?

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    It is a well known fact that illegal immigrants are voting, and voting almost exclusively Democrat, as instructed.
    provide links liar.
    But more importantly, here is a person objecting to the regulation of illegal immigrants, claiming that they don't vote because that would be illegal.
    Nope, non responsive, next!
    Which is almost as funny as Dadler asserting that I would think differently if they were voting Republican, after my comment that HE would be thinking differently if they were voting Republican.
    One does not imply the other, liar.
    why does the Left support illegal immigration?
    amazing, big bidness, which owns the WH is gor illegal immigration, they even cut standards of the epa to allow mexican trucks in. bush LOVES illegal immigarants, who else will wash is dirty laundry for him!? please rk, please please please ask me for links, but only after you supply yours. Apparently mr charlie, after he was banned, has put on a bow tie and continued posting under the rk banner. Hey, TL, please check the URLs and see if rk's isn't charlie's.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    There have been documented cases of undocumented voting by undocumented workers. And, one of the main reasons Democrats continually support driver's licenses for illegal aliens would seem to be that they get a Motor Voter card when they go to the DMV. After all, if an illegal alien can go to the DMV and get a driver's license, won't they remember who helped them get that? And, won't they want to repay the favor? And, what's the stop someone who's already broken probably three laws (entry, work, and ID) from voting illegally too? As for why the left supports open borders, why don't we ask those who are most affected: low-wage U.S. citizens, most of whom are Democrats. And, note that the left also supports in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Yet, that results in taking college educations away from Citizens of Color, also a Democratic voting bloc. Why do the Democrats hate U.S. citizens who are poor? Why do the Democrats hate poor U.S. Citizen Students of Color?

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    In fact, it's downright charming to see so many on the left embrace the same open borders philosophy as a committed libertarian like Virgina Postrel. Discussing an academic survey on the effect of immigration on wages, she opines: "If you look at the U.S. labor force," [Professor Peri] said, "those people born in the U.S., I am talking about a negative effect for about 9 percent of the population and a positive effect for 91 percent of the population." It's those 91 percent that the Democratic Party cares about. The rest can just go pound sand.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#27)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    it needs only be subjected to the democratic process of a Constitutional amendment to see what the people would decide.
    Yeah, right. Cause that amendment would pass. People outside of the GOP-dominated Capitol Building might be stupid but they aint retarded. Not yet, anyway.
    It is a well known fact that illegal immigrants are voting, and voting almost exclusively Democrat, as instructed.
    Height of stupidity, ladies and gentlemen, right there for all to peruse! Demonstrating in bright orange crayon (Republicans always write in crayon) the Republican penchant for burying all conversations and issues with truckloads of red herrings. I'd love to see some of these people try to pass a freshman composition class. But here you go, o challenged ones: How immigrants, legal or not, are voting has absotively zero bearing on the fact that if they have a child here, that child is an American citizen.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    bmb-Your claim must be from all those paperless voting machines you have been promoting.
    There have been documented cases of undocumented voting by undocumented workers.
    Very convienent, I hear that aliens are also voting, you know, the ones from Mars. Here is a link for you: link

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    Wow, BMB, do you lie for a living? You're GOOD at it. Posted by BigMediaBlog: "There have been documented cases of undocumented voting by undocumented workers." Just you can't name any. "And, one of the main reasons Democrats continually support driver's licenses for illegal aliens" ...is that the Chief of Police of the LAPD, the standard nationally of police agencies going back decades, is a STRONG, ARDENT supporter of driver licences for ALL, for the safety of his officers. Now BMB's hallucinogens kick in: "won't they remember who helped them get that? And, won't they want to repay the favor?" Won't they? Won't they behave like robots? You consider these PEOPLE to be as flat as your own frontal lobes. "And, what's the stop someone who's already broken probably three laws (entry, work, and ID) from voting illegally too?" Dunno. What would stop NO ONE from doing some hypothetical you can't validate statistically with a single study? What would stop cows from drinking moonbeams? "As for why the left supports open borders, why don't we ask those who are most affected: low-wage U.S. citizens, most of whom are Democrats." Why don't you quote them, these them you're hallucinating over. "And, note that the left also supports in-state tuition for illegal aliens." They do? The left? How many seats in government do the left have? ZERO. So who cares how they feel about in-state tuition? "Yet, that results in taking college educations away from Citizens of Color, also a Democratic voting bloc." Those damn citizens of color. Good thing men and women don't have that problem. "Why do the Democrats hate U.S. citizens who are poor? Why do the Democrats hate poor U.S. Citizen Students of Color?" Why do you think rhetorical questions are actual questions? Did you check under your bed for a boa constrictor? Then how do you know one's not there? "It's those 91 percent that the Democratic Party cares about. The rest can just go pound sand." Caring about 91 percent would be a LOT more than the 26 percent YOUR BUSH traitor cares about. How many poor people has Bush screwed into the ground ... lately? He's a one man poor person killing machine. And he lies as much as you do, which is to say A LOT.

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    I'd like to make it clear that I'm not replying to PinLA, just providing more information: [Gilles Burger, chairman of the Maryland Board of Elections] said he was "shocked" to learn that the rolls include noncitizens, although it's something local elections supervisors acknowledge and say is difficult to prevent. They say there's no way to know how many immigrants may be voting illegally. Here'a an article about Motor Voter. And, here's an article all about illegal aliens voting, including this: One of the most extensively documented cases of illegal voting was in California in 1996. Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, defeated Republican incumbent Robert Dornan by 984 votes. Dornan called for an investigation of alleged illegal voting by noncitizens. According to Congressional Quarterly, a Washington, DC newspaper that focuses on developments in Congress, "Task force Chairman [U.S. Representative] Vernon J. Ehlers, R-Mich., said investigators had found concrete evidence of 748 illegal votes by noncitizens, not enough to throw Sanchez's victory into doubt."

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    Did Mr Burger 'purge the suspected 'illegal immigrants' like they did to felons in Florida. Most were registered voters who were turned away at the polls.
    Maryland State Board of Elections Gilles Burger, Chairman of the Maryland State Board of Elections expressed on behalf of the State Board, continued confidence with the Diebold system, which has proven itself with high voter satisfaction marks in the 2002 general election. "We believe the Aviel Rubin's statement study to be incomplete and in some areas flawed ....."
    link wow bmb are you getting paid by diebold too? From Aviel Rubin
    "Yet, the vendors, and many election officials, such as those in Maryland and Georgia, continue to insist that the machines are perfectly secure," Rubin said Tuesday. "I cannot fathom the basis for their claims. I do not know of a single computer security expert who would testify that these machines are secure. I personally know dozens of computer security experts who would testify that they are not."
    What a hack. link

    Re: Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    On the Sanchez side, her lawyers contend that the number of questionable votes is 303 ... and that many of those voters were legally entitled to vote. They also said that many of these individuals became legal citizens between the time they registered and Election Day, and thus were legally entitled to vote. link
    This was in 1996, three years before Diebold et al. would remove the papertrail from THIRTY states, an election-invalidating event still in effect. But BMB is real worried about immigrant voting. A few hundred votes in 1996 does NOT compare to stealing every major election since 1999. Since BMB is opposed to illegal elections, how ODD that he never mentions the massive national vote-fraud that has put his political savages into power.

    Tom Tancredo Needs a History Lesson | 32 comments (32 topical)