The City Council agenda for next week has been released and under the “New Business” heading is this startling action item:
The item goes on to list six House bills and one resolution that the Santa Clarita City staff says the City Council ought to support and “transmit statements of position” to the Congressman McKeon and the US House of Representatives.
The bills include HR. 1868, the so-called Birthright Citizenship Act that would strip citizenship of babies born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents, a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Another bill the City Council may support is the “Defund ACORN Act,” and the “Fairness to American Students Act,” which would prohibit illegal immigrant students from paying in-state tuition for colleges and universities, even if they have lived in California for much of their lives.
I’m not generally prone to conspiracy theories (indeed, I think I’ve been more than pro-city in the 4 years I’ve run this blog) but this is pretty blatant electioneering in favor of the incumbents. Consider:
- It was just two City Council meetings ago where we heard Laurene Weste and other incumbents say the City’s hands were tied as far as illegal immigration
- The City was supposed to schedule a “study session” in which this matter was discussed. The results would have then been brought to the City Council’s attention and a public meeting was to be scheduled
Instead, what we have is no scheduled study session, no public meeting, a surprise agenda item with several controversial bills, and a City Council with three members who are apparently worried about the coming election.
Is this just what Tim Myers was talking about when he mentioned the incumbent’s strange behavior? Is the City Council, or even the city staff, worried about the election to the extent that they want to out-Gauny David Gauny?
What better way to disarm all those angry, Bob Kellar-supporting citizens than by showing “support” for the most controversial and regressive immigration bills in the US House (Defund ACORN…WTF?)
Now Weste, Ferry and McLean can go to the voters and say, “Look, here is what we are doing to fight illegal immigration!” Essentially they are removing illegal immigration as a wedge issue, are they not?
And what is David Gauny going to say about that? For the last six weeks he’s hammered Frank Ferry and the incumbents for their limp-wristed response to illegal immigration. What does he say now that they are doing something he ostensibly would support as a Councilman?
Watch next Tuesday as all the people who showed up to support Bob Kellar either A) show up to support this agenda item or B) get confused because they can’t hammer the City Council for being weak on immigration anymore.
Loading ...
Gee, are we responsible for this?
I certainly hope so.
More city campaigning for the incumbent garbage and just in time for the absentee ballots. Aren’t they clever, Marsha, Frank, and Laurene, they figured out that they better grab on and hold tight to David Gauny’s coat tails. David Gauny better have a strong back, Buck McKeon is hanging on tight to David’s coat tails, too.
Another POLITICAL PLOY!
Makes me sick!
I met with Buck McKeon to seek his endorsement on February 17, 2010. During that meeting, we spoke about the immigration issue and the several bills he had co-authored on the issue.
That evening, Marsha McLean and I were both featured speakers at the Meet the Candidates Forum hosted by Canyon Country Advisory Committee (CCAC). Interestingly, Marsha brought up the bills but used them only as further proof that this is a federal issue. See the video (@3:30-4:35): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfc9c_kr_kw
I was shocked that she made no mention of endorsing the bills. So, at the CRA endorsement meeting on 2/25, I called out each of the bills in my presentation and said that, if elected, I would call our city to endorse each of these bills immediately, just as we endorse the Cemex bills and other various “federal” bills that affect our city.
I find it very amusing that the incumbents have now hopped on the bandwagon to “lead” the way on this. I mean, could it be that I am already leading the council and I’m not even there yet?! How far we’ve come since the absolute refusal just a few short weeks ago to even put this issue on the agenda!
The uncaring statements from these incumbents that the city’s hands are tied have been replaced by them taking credit for tackling the issue! Now, all we need is a Cheesecake Factory!
In truth, I don’t care who gets credit for the issue – I just want something done. This is just another example of what can be accomplished with new energy applied to a problem. We need to stop settling for what we have.
Dave:
Are you into supporting bills that are unconstitutional on their face? The whole “anchor baby” debate smacks seriously of a pogrom. Let’s remember the other nations historically that have stripped people of their citizenship.
Let me just say this, No disrespect intended, but NONE of the currently serving council members or hopefuls are even remotely qualified to address this EXTREMELY complicated issue. You might ask your buddies at the Chamber why the US Chamber of Commerce is against the full implementation of E-verify, which would pretty much stop the employment of those not qualified to work in the US.
Stick to hospital expansion and other more pedestrian things and you won’t make us look like a bunch of uninformed and uneducated yahoos.
Jeff says “Birthright Citizenship Act that would strip citizenship of babies born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents, a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”
Jeff, this “right” was to guarantee that slaves born on American soil, which were freed after the Civil War, were given automatic citizenship. It was never intended to be abused by anyone coming here from another country without legal permission, having children at taxpayer expense, and that event then qualifying the children for automatic citizenship.
“It was never intended to be abused by anyone coming here from another country without legal permission”
How do you know?
>>>>>Watch next Tuesday as all the people who showed up to support Bob Kellar either A) show up to support this agenda item or B) get confused because they can’t hammer the City Council for being weak on immigration anymore.<<<<<
Hopefully someone ask them to explain how Bob Kellar's outburst was NOT a violation of the City's Code of Ethics when it clearly is as printed on the City's website.
BGH:
Constitutional scholar. Are you self educated like Dave Gauny?
“EXTREMELY complicated issue”
Sorry Timmy, but this must only apply to those that have an accounting background. Illegal immigration in not EXTREMELY complicated unless you want it to be to make your argument.
Perhaps the college kids should stop protesting the education budget cuts and begin to protest the costly protection of illegals. Students are starting to feel the cost of illegal immigration where it hurts. Perhaps now they will get the message.
I do agree however, that your council is inept for the most part. Kellar notwithstanding.
One of my partners recently discussed possibly moving to Santa Clarita with his adult sons. His sons both agreed he should not saying, “Santa Clarita is to the SF Valley, what Palmdale is to Santa Clarita.”
Thanks City Council.
Tomorrow I’m going to try and convince my partner he should move to Awesometown!
Our City council is a bunch of dicks. As eloquent as I prefer to be, that’s the best I can do.
DG….OMG, how have we ever managed to get where we are without you? Be careful not to break your arm via your self-congratulatory patting of your back.
Yes, you are a trailblazer. Your long-standing position on this issue for the last 40 or so days since you realized the citizenry you are already leading (e.g. the folks kind enough to come from the AV and Fillmore proudly representing SOS) needed a man of your character to lead them is commendable.
what happened to Gramps’ comment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
14 Stat. 27, April 9, 1866 A.D.
Civil Rights Act of 1866
39th United States Congress
Long title: CHAP XXXI. — An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their vindication.
Authored by:
Introduced by:
Dates
Date passed: House: April 9, 1866
Senate: April 6, 1866.
Date signed into law: 1866
Amendments:
Related legislation:
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was a federal law in the United States that made everyone born in the U.S except Native Americans in the United States full citizens. It was aimed at the Freedmen (freed slaves) and was a major policy during Reconstruction. It was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson[1], then passed over his veto by Radical Republicans in Congress.[2]
I am appalled that the City is considering supporting legislation from these bills that Buck McKeon introduced.
As Jeff pointed out, HR. 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act) would strip citizenship of babies born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. Did you know babies that are born in the United States regardless of a parent’s status is a citizen covered by the Constitution under the 14th Amendment? The bill as its written is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The other bills Jeff described as “Defund ACORN Act,” and the “Fairness to American Students Act,” would prohibit illegal immigrant students from paying in-state tuition for colleges and universities. Often these students have lived in California for almost their entire life.
These bills are aimed at hurting the truly innocent: CHILDREN. I find it despicable and frankly irresponsible of the City to potentially support these bills that are detrimental to children. I cannot believe a City as great as Santa Clarita would want to take a stand against not letting children get the education and rights guranteed by the Constitution.
Also, I don’t believe it is the City’s role to be advocating what types of rights should or should not be given to children. The City is outright defying the US CONSTITUTION. This is UNAMERICAN.
Berta you missed this important Supreme Court decision that further defined the 14th Amendment in 1898.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, according to the court’s majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory. The majority held that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[4]) – and that since none of these conditions applied to Wong’s situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact that “…during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China”.
While you are considerating moderation of my comments, I believe you should publish them as they are important to the discussion. Introducing a bill that is contradictory to the constution is irresponsible. That indicates all involved whether writing or supporting have not done their research and have not considered the intent of our constitution. While my comments may be inflamatory, as they are meant to be, I believe they may also cause folks to think and consider the intent and realize authoring a bill that is doomed will not solve the problem. In fact it is a waste of time and effort. Please publish my comment and allow the folks on the blog to react. Manyy thanks
Clearly the members of SOS and Mr. Gauny have at last fired “the shot heard round the world” that will address this 112 year running atrocity once and for all.
NickelDime,
Precedent is relevant.
Supreme Court decisions are binding precedent. The Supreme Court would have to reverse its ruling to strip birth right.
I could interpret that this particular amendment was to prevent children from being denied citizenship simply because their parents were ineligible for citizenship such as via the Chinese Exclusion Act you reference. If my interpretation is correct, there is no relevance to the current issue since these parents here illegally were never excluded from entering legally (they chose to enter illegally) and then applying for naturalized citizenship.
Then there is the part about “the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China”.
Many of these parents are receiving government subsidies to support these children. Do you consider that “the prosecution of business”.
There are plenty of lawyers who can figure this out. In MY OPINION, the current system is being abused.
If it takes another constitutional amendment to stop the abuse, so be it.
It is important to understand the difference between Act and Amendment. An Act is a federal law that has a lifespan (meaning it has a sunset clause) and usually speaks to a specific issue. The Voter Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act speaks to underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities. The XIV and XV amendments enfranchise everyone in the United State with rights. This is the idea of the Bill of Rigths, it is a set of (I know you’ll hate this word) entitlements that the framers gave to the people. Equal protection under the law is one of those entitlements. And as much as the law was about thwarting legal challenges to the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which the XIV amendment did little in day-to day life to help enforce the Civil Right Act of the time, the amendment is more a legal precursor to the XV amendment which extends voting rights to non landowners. This is what allowed white men who weren’t landed gentry to vote. One might argue that the XIV amendment stands behind the First amendment as the most important Constitutional right we have. I say that because the XIV amendment actually strengthens our due process rights. Any challenges to the XIV amendment is dangerous and should not be supported. Period!!!
Pingback: Chamber Luncheon – City Council Candidates | SCV Blogs
Clearly the wording in the 14th ammendment
is ambiguous and needs to be corrected.
If states passing their own laws is
what it take to get the federal govt’s
attention then that what they should all
do.
Again, black Americans are placed in the line of fire when legislation meant to assure their emancipation after slavery is used to undermine their economic, political , and social standing in the civil society.
Many of those above who claim to know the Constitution have never read it or studied it.
The Constitution requires more than birth they must be also be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Illegal aliens and children born to non citizens in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of their native country whether they are born there or not.
There is NO history to support the proposition that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to empower illegal alien mothers to confer American citizenship on their off spring simply by birthing them on American soil.
The proposition that it did is absurd and not supportable.
David Gauny and TimBen often say that the current city council is not responsive to their constituents. This is a c/p of a letter sent to mayor Laurene Weste, to which I am still awaiting a reply.
Laurene,
I did not attend the city council meeting on Tuesday evening, largely due to the imposing presence of the group from answerla.org gathered out front.
While watching the proceedings on Channel 20, it appeared that you allowed extensive discussion and comment by council persons after the public comments were made. This did not seem appropriate in view of the stated policy of the council on the agenda which seems to preclude this. The creation of a citizens committee, or the possibility of putting the “Kellar issues” on the council agenda was done without advance notice to the citizens of Santa Clarita.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
This time has been set aside for the public to address the City Council on items that are NOT onthe agenda. Council will not act upon those items at this meeting other than to review and return without action or provide direction to staff. ALL speakers must submit a speaker’s slip to the City Clerk prior to this portion of the meeting and prepare a presentation not to exceed three (3) minutes. The number of people wishing to speak will divide the thirty minutes allowed for public input, maximum time allowed per person will be three (3) minutes.
_________________________________________________________________________
It does not seem that extended lengthy commentary should not have been allowed by any council person , especially in view of the fact that some of the speakers from answerla.org indicated that legal filings and or administrative action against the city and sitting council members .
Please advise me why you deviated from stated policy and allowed extended public comment by city council members in response to the provocative and threatening statements by those from answerla.org.
Sincerely yours,
Der Petzmeister
Phil: I agree that whatever it takes, within the law, to stop this abuse of birthright citizenship needs to happen.
For all: some of my posts have been blocked by Jeff and since this is his blog, that is his right.
I do feel it is unfair to block a post, which is neither offensive nor untrue when one is substantiating a comment. The person who chose to call me a very offensive name said what I said he did. Look back to the previous day’s posting if you care to since Jeff blocked my copy/paste of his comments.
As I said, you all can call me whatever names you chose, it will not shut me up.
Therefore, in closing, just because you do not see my response, that does not mean I did not post one.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/money-line-local-governments-urge-illegal-immigrants-census/
Jeff – Post above if you want.
Thank you for SCV Talk.
Sam: some excerpts:
1. In Phoenix, officials estimate every resident counted is worth about $400 in government funding.
YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY THINK THIS SUM COVERS COSTS.
2. She said every counted resident is worth about $1,000 to the county.
YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY THINK THIS SUM COVERS COSTS.
3. William Gheen, president of the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), said that counting undocumented residents for the purposes of the census “undermines” the electoral process — he said on that basis, immigrant-heavy places like Southern California could qualify for far more funding and representation than immigrant-light places like Maine.
THEREFORE, IT BENEFITS THE POLITICIANS BUT COSTS THE TAXPAYERS.
4. “It is intrinsically unfair and abusive to American citizens,” Gheen said. He said Congress should eventually exclude all data from illegal immigrants for funding and apportionment decisions and allow it to be used instead for enforcement. Plus, he said, counting illegal immigrants in the census is part of a “de facto amnesty” policy.
DO I NEED TO OPINE?
Yes obviously it doesn’t cover the cost, the article didn’t mention this.
It is just pointing out why some local governments want everyone counted in this census (money).
http://ndn3.newsweek.com/media/25/71014_MoneyHappiness_vl-vertical.jpg
Got it. Thanks.
Berta, your posts would never be blocked on SCVBlogs.com
Rob, funny to see you have a conversation with yourself on your blog. Don’t you have some domain names to squat?
SCVguy thanks, I appreciate that.
@Mike: Yes, those first posts were me. I was testing and didn’t remove them. Big deal.
I do not squat domains, I invest in them. Do you have a problem with that?
I just purchased blazingmonk.net, .org & .info
What’s your domain? I’ll get that too.
I’m not saying your mother’s a whore, I’m saying she has sex with men for money.
Mike: your comments are offensive.
Wow. Unbelievable. Way to use your freedom of speech.
you missed the joke
(shock!)
“I do not squat domains, I invest in them.”
You’re appropriating someone else’s intellectual property while trying to capitalize on it. You’re a squatter.
@mike: the proper term is “stockpiling”
and it’s not illegal unless the names are trademarked. You may want to do some research before you make claims.
Your joke was sick, rude and immature.
It’s unethical, dishonest, sleazy and indicative of your character. You are trying to make money off of someone else’s name and hard work.
As for the joke, I was illustrating the absurdity of your equivocation. Changing the name of something doesn’t change the substance.
I see you haven’t spammed wikipedia yet to promote the new blog. Have you gone soft?
Hey Mike,
What do you do for a living? Do you have a wife? Children?
Really? Is that your way of making your point? Anyone see the problem with this guy? The woman you are casualy refering to and using as your attack is my mother! She is a grandmother to 6 children! My husband and I are sitting here in shock and we will be finding out who you are, what you do, and letting others know what you said. This is not grade school and you will be held accountable for your words.
Lesson to be learned here is that Mike is a obviously not thinking before he makes a comment that would hurt an entire family.
I’m not referring to anyone’s mother. It’s an old saying. Jon Stewart calls it back to it almost weekly. A google search of “i’m not saying your mother’s a whore” brings up over 100,000 hits. It’s an expression used when someone uses a nicer way to describe something unseemly.
Your brother tried to take advantage of Jeff’s work and intellectual property by grabbing the domains scvtalk.net and sctalk.org. He calls this underhanded move an “investment”.
Either way, the joke was lost, and to those who took it literally, I apologize. I’d be very upset too.
Hmmmm, well I don’t need to google it. My mom taught me if you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all.
My dad taught me that when someone says something about family you defend them. Those words you used mike, those are fighting words.
Rob is my brother, however, I have two other brothers and a sister. You may have diferences with Rob, but watch your words because he has a large family and we don’t mess with mom!
DeAnna, in all sincerity, I was not directing my comment at your mother. It wasn’t about anyone, it was just an expression, but too much off an inside joke, considering the downside to it being taken differently. I’ll try not to be so careless in the future.
Rob, DeAna, I’m sorry.
Mike,
You are 100 % right, and I’m behind you.
Rob is a squatter and you did not call his mother a whore.
He only thought you did because there is not a whole going on up stairs. Which is typical of people who are unethical, rude, and oblivious.
Doing what He did is the only way for him to get ahead in this world. He failed at a real profession.
I agree with Mike.
Mike, you are a thoughtless jerk. My mother really is a whore and she works way harder for her money than this domain thieving lowlife.