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 ...
Amen! This provision should have been in the original bill.
Anchor babies are the main reason for the rampant lawbreaking we have.
Sounds good to me.
I have spoken to J.D. Hayworth about this a few years ago. He feels the same way.
And END chain migration as well.
yay
Whoa, what would Santoro say about that.
Add me to the “in favor” list.
let them become citizens the legal way.
Ooooo, that left a mark!!!! You go AZ!!
we should have stopped all immigration on 9/11 until we could conduct it safely.
I, too, wish that the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S.A. would have the nationality(ies) of their parents. But the laws must be changed to make that possible. Thankfully, they’re not eligible to become President.
Let me explain. All people born in the U.S. are considered native born citizens. (Only those native born whose parents are U.S. citizens can be considered Natural Born Citizens. NBC is NOT a form of citizenship, merely a circumstance of birth required for eligibility to become President per Article 12 of the U.S. Constitution.)
Please note the capitalized quote in the following.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Wong Kim Ark was the son of two resident Chinese aliens who claimed U.S. Citizenship. He was vindicated by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, he cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett: “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO WERE ITS CITIZENS, BECAME THEMSELVES, UPON THEIR BIRTH CITIZENS ALSO. THESE WERE NATIVES, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A. under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.) but it DID NOT extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” to those whose parents were not citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
So, any anchor baby born here of illegal aliens is a native born citizen but will never be eligible to become President.
No. The courts eff’ed up. Kids of ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE NOT CITIZENS AND WE MUST STOP PRETENDING THEY ARE.
Someone posted the statistics of the number of babies born here of illegal mothers and it was eyeopening.
Won’t happen without a constitutioonal ammendment. And we will never have the votes...
14th Amendment states...
“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 much we can do about this. To change that language it would require a supermajority not just in congress but you would need 2/3rds of the states to pass it.
Illegal aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction. Only in the sense we get to deport them. Your (and the libtards on the courts) interpretation is nonsensical fallacy.
Close the border and start deporting, and clean out the schools of anchor babies too!!!
Get rid of it, and adopt Mexico’s illegal immigrant laws verbatum if need be.
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.
What SCOTUS decision are you hanging your hat on?
I have spoken to J.D. Hayworth about this a few years ago. He feels the same way.
I would be curious for a "clarification" on what it is that he feels the same way about. There are two different ways of understanding your statement.
One way says that a state can (and has the legal ability to) deprive a kid who is born in that state of being a U.S. Citizen, if his parents are not citizens. Those are called "anchor babies"... the parents either being legal or illegals, in the United States at the time.
The second way of understanding what you just said, is that he believes that we should not have the situation where there can be "anchor babies" legally speaking, and that we need to changed that in our laws (namely Congress needs to change that).
I don't know which one of the two you are talking about. And I consider the difference between the two to be a sign of whether someone is "attached to reality" or not ... LOL ...
Take your ignorance elsewhere
No. It is a grotesque misinterpretation of the constitution. Grotesque and idiotic.
What SCOTUS decision are you hanging your hat on?
You must not have seen what post I was responding to... then ...
See Post #35 ...
I happen to like this thread and it’s very interesting and also very appropriate for the current political debate... so why on earth should I go somewhere else?
I believe this is what Star Traveler is referring to: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
See my post at #13 for the explanation.
How many damn WRONG and pisspoor reasoned court decisions have we had in our history. A whole bumch. Just because Kelo was decided the way it was does not make it right, moral, permanent or remotely constitutional. Sorry
GO shill for the illegals on someone else’s thread.
No. It is a grotesque misinterpretation of the constitution. Grotesque and idiotic.
Wishful thinking on your part... but if something is to be done about it... (and people have talked before about "anchor babies") -- then it's going to take Congress dealing with it...
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.