GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | November 4, 2005 | By Stephen Dinan

[x5452]

Seems like the could eventually be twisted against citizens. I don't like it.

Build the wall, but don't start messing with citizenship.

[GrandEagle]

"The Founders"?
I stand corrected. Although I knew it was the 14th amendment, I just wasn't thinking.

At least I got my mistake for the day out of the way early! - LOL!

Cordially,
GE

[rhombus]

Grand Eagle had a good solution: citizenship conferred only for legal aliens.

I think it would be a hard sell.

[HighFlier]

"and under the jurdisdiction thereof"

[Killborn]

Why do you think that? It doesn't clash with equal protection.

[Cruz]

Amen!

[GrandEagle]

The Constitution also gives to Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Courts including the Supreme Court. It seems to me that if Congress has enough desire, they can limit birthright citizenship with action that falls short of a Constitutional Amendment.

All of the above is correct. However, for the Congress to deliberately pass a law the is clearly not Constitutional, then to remove jurisdiction from SCOTUS to review cases involving that law would be grounds for impeachment for every Congressional member who voted to do it.

[.cnI redruM]

I like doing both. We should build the wall and end anchor babydom. We should select who gets our citizenship based on who benefits us the most.

We should take the next Einstein and if possible, screen for and reject the next Tony Montana. We are under no ethical obligation to make US citizenship easily obtainable for the foreign born.

[Congressman Billybob]

Not necessarily. Congress by law establishes that the land and buildings of the Japanese Embassy in D.C. is not American, but Japanese. As a result, if a staff member at that embassy has a child, that child is (legally) born in Japan, not in the US. Since Congress can do that by law, it can do this. Or, so goes the argument.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Democrat Official Outed as 'Sleaze' Source on Mayor O'Malley; Washington Post Ignored Story it Had (Updated)"

[HighFlier]

The amendment has been misused for years. The wording is sufficient for the removal of our present day birthright citizenship.

And the original intent was not the way it is used today - anchor babies - it was to ensure former slaves were given citizenship.

Really, this amendment should have had an expiration clause, but the authors couldn't have for seen the mess we have today.

[George W. Bush]

I believe that will take a Constitutional amendment. Simply reworking the amendment to allow those born here while their parents are LEGALLY here would be OK with me. Obviously that is what the founders meant.

You're right about the amendment if the Court actually did enforce the text of the Constitution. In recent years, their interest has been pretty selective.

And I don't see why a 'green card baby' or a 'temporary visa baby' should be any more entitled to citizenship than a baby whose mother jumped the border a few days before delivery so it could be her 'anchor baby'.

[Landru]

"House Republicans are looking closely at ending birthright citizenship and building a barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border as they search for solutions to illegal immigration."

This is an excellent start for removing the #1 incentive illegals have for coming here, illegally.
Agree?

Now the question becomes.

...what'll the spineless GOPers actually do?

[11th_VA]

Somebody pinch me - Is this a dream, the Pubbies are getting a clue ???

[rhombus]

Why do you think that? It doesn't clash with equal protection.

I'm speaking on in terms of public relations only. In effect you'd be running against the Statue of Liberty...give me your tired, your poor...

I know, I know they were legal aliens but I'm speaking about how it would be spun in the media. We'd see one story after another about some poor "immigrant" (aka crimalien) who just came here to work to feed his hungry children, blah, blah, blah... big bad mean xenophobic conservatives...blah, blah, blah...

[Mulch]

Yep. Not to mention that it would be much easier to implement than a wall. In fact, forget the wall and just end the entitlements and while we're at it, start cracking down on employers who hire ILLEGALS.

[Hoodlum91]

I've been saying that for YEARS!!!

[.cnI redruM]

Tancredo has always had one. He's just had to swim upstream against the glacial indifference of his allies in The House.

[jackbenimble]

. Stop them at the border and the anchor baby scam wont occur.

I agree. That would help a lot. But lots of our illegals don't come across the border but simply overstay a valid tourist visa past its expiration date. What will we do about them?

One thing I think that would help a lot would be to reform the Family Reunification parts of our immigration law so even if the baby is a citizen, it can never sponsor in its parents as citizens when the baby becomes an adult. There is a fairly firm principle in our legal system that people should not benefit from their crimes. The illegals should NEVER become citizens as a result of crossing our borders illegally and having a baby.

[Killborn]

Embassies are considered foreign territory. It would only make sense that a person born there is not a US citizen.

[LWalk18]

Build the wall, but don't start messing with citizenship.

Exactly- would everyonr have to take special steps to prove that your child is an American citizen at birth? How you determine whether someone's parents were here legally or illegally? Do we really want situation where an adult who believes he or she is a citizen finds out they are not a citizen because of some glitch in their mother's visa during birth?