Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tublecane
"The 14th amendment disagrees with him."


You are right, it would require a constitutional amendment to address the issue of "anchor babies".
8 posted on 04/28/2010 1:50:51 PM PDT by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: rob777

Then it is time for an Amendment to the 14th Amendment. I agree that we can’t strip citizenship from those already here, but we need to put a stop to the illegal entry. Back when the 14th Amendment was ratified, we were welcoming huge influxes of immigrants. Legal meant you passed inspection at Ellis Island. There was very little “illegal” immigration; they were just put back on the boat for the return voyage.

I don’t think the Congress or State Legislatures of 1870 ever thought we would have the situation we do today.


15 posted on 04/28/2010 1:54:25 PM PDT by henkster (A broken government does not merit full faith and credit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: rob777; Tublecane

“You are right, it would require a constitutional amendment to address the issue of “anchor babies”.”

No it wouldn’t. It takes a court decision to state that the 14th applied to the children of slaves, not aliens.


22 posted on 04/28/2010 1:56:29 PM PDT by Pelham (Obamacare, the new Final Solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: rob777
You are right, it would require a constitutional amendment to address the issue of "anchor babies".

No, it would simply require Congress to pass a law enforcing the 14th Amendment.

51 posted on 04/28/2010 2:47:25 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Obamunism: You have two cows. The regime redistributes them and shoots you dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson