Posted on 08/02/2010 8:09:56 PM PDT by thecodont
Don't be surprised if you hear the phrase "birthright citizenship" a whole bunch of times before the November election.
The U.S. rule that all persons born in this country automatically become citizens is becoming a major front for Republicans in the immigration debate.
On Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican senator, expressed support for hearings on the issue. Last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, generally considered a moderate on immigration, said he may introduce a constitutional amendment so children of illegal immigrants did not become citizens.
"People come here to have babies," he said. "They come here to drop a child. It's called "drop and leave."
While there is already legislation to eliminate birthright citizenship, making the change would probably require a constitutional amendment, a much more difficult task. That's because the Fourteenth 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.
Supporters of a change say the amendment adopted just after the Civil War was designed simply to make sure that former slaves became citizens, and wasn't intended to apply to illegal immigrants' kids.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/hottopics/detail?entry_id=69197&tsp=1#ixzz0vVZkyhqN
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
But the pro-immigration Immigration Policy Center offers a rebuttal, with scholar Elizabeth Wydra citing the "clear intent of the Reconstruction framers to grant U.S. citizenship based on the objective measure of U.S. birth rather than subjective political or public opinion."
Really. What "rule" might that be?
The key here is “. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”
As long as these parents have maintained foreign citizenship with no affirmative attempt to become American citizens (by entry WITH inspection and formal application for citizenship) and as long as their own government retains the right to represent their interests when in trouble, then their status is no different than that of diplomatic parents or foreign military on duty in the United States.
It is insane and would be asinine for any judge to rule that paarents who have illegally forced their way into the United States should be rewarded with citizenship for their child and eventually themselves. Only a democrat could fall for that nonsense.
bump
They why is the son of Britain in the executive seat?
Cut spending, cut taxes, cut no slack at the border, THEN move on to other things.
Ping...
As long as these parents have maintained foreign citizenship with no affirmative attempt to become American citizens (by entry WITH inspection and formal application for citizenship) and as long as their own government retains the right to represent their interests when in trouble, then their status is no different than that of diplomatic parents or foreign military on duty in the United States.
Mexican consulates are hiring lawyers all the time for their criminal citizens in the US and complaining about unfair prosecutions of their illegal aliens.. The Mexican government has been intervening in US court cases too. Most recently in Arizona SB1170. It also sets up polling places here for Mexicans to vote in Mexican elections
It is obvious that Mexican government considers Mexicans living here to be under Mexican jurisdiction.
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.