If this is passed retroactively then we can begin the process of stripping the TOTUS of his citizenship. Remember his mother was not of age and too busy chasing after troop ships to qualify under Hawaii law. This will be interesting.
Posted on 05/22/2010 2:17:14 PM PDT by pissant
Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of the controversial state immigration bill, told his constituents that he wants to invalidate the U.S. citizenship of children who were born to illegal immigrants.
He also sent constituents an e-mail he later said he disagrees with. "If we are going to have an effect on the anchor baby racket, we need to target the mother," it said. Other political leaders have called for an end to birthright citizenship.
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California told a tea party rally he´d support deporting the children of illegal aliens despite their birthright citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at shortnews.com ...
While we are at it, lets end welfare for them and there illegal parents.
Sure there is. Provisions have been made to exempt newborns of anyone in a foreign diplomatic corps, and I think visa holders. One you make an exception, the door is wide open.
Pissant, as much as I don't like it, the 14th Amendment is quite clear that anyone born in the USA is a citizen. Jerry557 is correct in his post that you are replying to. Nothing libtard about it. It's constitutional fact and can only be changed as Jerry557 described.
There's yer trouble.
There are about 500 million people in Latin America. They should stay there. There is Latin America and there is English speaking America, why should Latin America take over English speaking America? Don't they have enough territory?
Count me in favor! Bravo!
Hear, hear. No more breeding future voters of the RAT party. Similarly, the welfare state has been grown for this same reason. Those on the welfare rolls were purposely provided benefits that result in rapid population growth of demrat voters. The productive segment of society paying the bills pale in comparison to the reproductive output of the welfare rolls. Anyone getting a check from welfare should not be allowed to vote—been sayin it for decades.
Does anyone know what the volume has been relating to baby’s receiving citizenship under this amendment, say annually?
I am for that. This should have never happened.
(i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
I think the word "person" has a specific meaning in relation to the law, and it doesn't include illegal invaders. It has been distorted by the left, as they love to distort everything they disagree with.
We DEMAND loyalty. No loyalty to the USA - stay the h@ll out!
Were his parents both U.S. citizens when he was born, or was he an "anchor baby"?
Pissant, I agree with you on this subject. But our present laws say differently, and has for over a hundred years. Because it is an interpretation per case law, I believe it has the potential to be overturned.
If a case does make it to SCOTUS, the wording “under the jurisdiction of the United States” could be the deciding factor turning back the blanket ruling under Wong Kim Ark.
Wong Kim Ark’s parents were subjects of the Emperor of China (19th century). The Chinese Emperor and the U.S.A. had a treaty by which all the Emperor’s subjects would never be naturalized as U.S. citizens. So even if Wong Kim Ark’s folks wanted to become citizens, they could not have done so.
But they were legal resident aliens living under the jurisdiction of the U.S. I believe that is the key to denying anchor babies citizenship - their parents are here illegally.
Catch my drift?
Im talking about people who are born on American soil. According to the Constitution, they are citizens. Sure there are a few valid exceptions like people who are foreign diplomats and such.
But if someone goes to a court with a valid birth certificate that shows they were born on US soil, the 14th amendment grants them citizenship right then and there.
Section 1401 in Title 8 of the US Code also defines a citizen as:
-Anyone born inside the United States *
-Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
-Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
-Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
-Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
-Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
-Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
-A person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html
Pre-eminent Arizona Sen Russell Pearce, author of the state's immensely
successful immigration bill, now wants to End Citizenship by Birthright.
Pearce wrote that he plans to "push for an Arizona bill that would refuse to accept or issue a birth certificate that recognizes citizenship to those born to illegal aliens, unless one parent is a citizen," in an email obtained by Phoenix CBS affiliate KPHO.
That one won't work. I mean if someone is born here, it's a matter of record if they are or not -- and that's all it is.
As to whether they are citizens or not, being born on U.S. soil, that's a legal matter for the country that the states can't affect. To pursue that matter, it will take legislators in Congress to do something about it.
It's one thing to enforce the existing laws about illegal immigrants and also to make sure they are legal (like Arizona in checking on an individual's status), but I don't see an individual state declaring that a baby born in the state is not a citizen -- making it past the first court challenge ... :-)
Im talking about people who are born on American soil. According to the Constitution, they are citizens. Sure there are a few valid exceptions like people who are foreign diplomats and such.
But if someone goes to a court with a valid birth certificate that shows they were born on US soil, the 14th amendment grants them citizenship right then and there.
The politics and legal wrangling over illegal immigration makes some posters "go crazy" it seems ... LOL ...
I can very well understand cracking down on illegal immigration inside the various states, as my state of Oklahoma has done, too. At the time they put forth a law dealing with illegal immigration (a couple of years ago), it was hailed as the toughest law in the nation. That's Oklahoma for you ... :-)
However, when someone has a record of being born in a certain place in the United States, I don't see any state being able to deprive someone of citizenship, the way things are right now, no matter what the state says.
BUT, if this "country" (as a whole) wants to deal with this issue and deprive kids of illegal aliens from being a citizen -- that is something that surely can be done "legally" and be enforced in all states. It's going to require Congress to act on that particular item, as the states will be knocked down in short order, if they try to do that. That's a completely different matter than dealing with illegal immigrants in their states.
Chew on this. I saw a “news” report on TV a number of years back. An airliner was coming in from Columbia when the mother gave birth aboard the plane. (Don’t know what happened to that six week rule). Anyway, the anchorette was smiling when she said that he mother would be applying for U.S. citizenship for the child since the child was supposedly born after the airliner had entered U.S. airspace. Ah, Houston. We have a problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.