Posted on 08/11/2011 6:42:41 AM PDT by hocndoc
You must meet State residency requirements - 12 months in Texas.
Actually, if mama is resourceful and driven enough and can get here to give birth, the child who is born on US soil - Like Senator Rubio - is a citizen from birth.
Actually, if mama is resourceful and driven enough and can get here to give birth
_____________________________________________
So you are saying its a good thing to be an illegal alien ???
and just waltz in here and have an anchor baby ???
What is the mama is resourceful and driven enough and can get here to give birth in your back yard ???
Does that make you responsibile to take her and the child into your house and feed and cloth and educate them for life ???
I do hope so cause anywhere in the US is your back yard
We’ll send them on down...
No, its about children, raised in the United States without legal paperwork, trying to get into college and having trouble doing so. The Texas Dream Act regularized these people.
Your assumption about children coming to United States after being born is just that an assumption. And a misunderstanding of the article altogether. Spelled out clearly, the numbers are upwards of 700,000 babies born in the US each year to Illegals, undocumented immigrants if you prefer.
Both Republican and Democrat Presidents and their respective congresses allowed it to happen.
doc, the Supreme Court made clear the citizenship issue;
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.” In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
While I prefer that we find a solution which allows a goodly number of migrants to remain, the problem is now massive and must be fixed. I would have preferred Zee Visa legislation pass but have been unable to hold a fixed opinion on this large and growing problem.
Ron White has a solution. New paint, new shrubs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cHhq5CVCmA
You are off your rocker kook!
The article is about illegals brought here by their illegal parents getting in state college tuition.
We Americans are going to put a stop to it and send them all home. You can’t stop us.
From the article:
“Our law in Texas, (unofficially called The Texas DREAM Act after the failed Federal Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors), allows a young adult — who was brought here as a minor through no fault of his own – to be counted as a resident only for calculating tuition rates in our State-supported colleges.”
Yeah, you are clearly off your meds.
I don’t care to discuss it any more with you. Okay?
I’ll file this under people I wish I hadn’t posted to.
You don’t like me, got it. Bye.
Your posts make no sense. Other than that you seem like a swell person.
Imagine what Mexico and other south of the border nation could do with a well education influx of people. WOW, maybe they could actually fix their own problems! I’m all for it! Don’t we have a lack of jobs right now anyway?
I think they owe the American taxpayers for a free and excellent education they would not have gotten in their home countries, but I guess that’s just me. Instead all I seem to hear is complaining that it’s not enough.
Exactly, and ditto to your whole post. This "they've been here since they were two" argument is ridiculous. It's an insult to any sense of fair play or justice. Imagine someone steals your car and manages to avoid detection for eight or ten years. Does your car become his? Are you OK with that? That's the argument put forth by DREAM Act proponents -- that the mere passage of time makes it all OK.
The United States is one of the few remaining developed nations to grant automatic citizenship to all newborns. (View a list of nations that offer birthright citizenship.)
There are several pieces of proposed legislation in Congress that would require at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident for the newborn to receive citizenship, including Rep. Gary Miller’s (R-Calif.) LEAVE Act.
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article,” Rep. Miller told Fox News earlier today.
Please click here to send a fax and urge your Members of Congress to support legislation ending birthright citizenship.
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16535&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007
The term “birthright citizenship” refers to the current practice of considering children born in the United States to automatically acquire U.S. citizenship. This issue is also commonly termed the “anchor baby” issue. These terms describe an issue that is related to and complicates administration of our immigration law because our immigration admission criteria is based so heavily on family relationships and U.S. citizens are able to sponsor extended family members for legal immigration status.
An anchor baby is defined as an offspring of an illegal immigrant or other non-citizen, who under current legal interpretation becomes a United States citizen at birth. These children may instantly qualify for welfare and other state and local benefit programs. Additionally with the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, the child may sponsor other family members for entry into the United States when he or she reaches the age of twenty-one (See also Chain Migration). The sheer numbers are staggering. In Stockton, California (2003), 70 percent of the 2,300 babies, born in San Joaquin General Hospital’s maternity ward were anchor babies.
You’re going overboard, Nana. Salvation is important. But this isn’t salvation, it’s just politics. My opinion is just as good as yours.
The Governor puts his reputation and career on the line for life and family. Truth be told, his appearance at prolife rallies and fight for marriage is constantly criticized. Those would be deal breakers for me. The esoterics of citizenship is not.
Texas already pays more than our fair share. We took in Katrina and Rita Refugees. We send more taxes out than we take
back from DC.
It’s the lazy uninspired who sit at home who we don’t want. The motivated parents who want better for their kids that we do want. They work, make their own jobs and businesses. That’s who built our nation. The Irish no one wanted, then the Chinese and then the Italians.
We don't need them. We don't need their bills for medical, education, food, work, insurance or any of it. We simply do not need them. You can personally okay it in Texas and you can sponsor one of them yourself. In effect, you acceptance of this is forcing other Americans to sponsor your penchants. You are not "right" of anything.
So they were brought here by their parents at the age of 2 or 3 and spent their entire lives here. So where do they go?
Hypothetically, what if you were contacted today by ICE because it was discovered your parents came into this country undocumented while you yourself was a child from, lets say, the Ukraine and that you must leave this country and return. Where would you go?
Do you believe in punishing the child for the sins of the father?
You and I agree on every point except those kids who qualify for in state tuition.
I can appreciate that. But you realize in and out-of state tuitions for state universities are there for a reason. It is precisely because that in-state tuitions are subsidized by state taxpayers. You’re free to support it in Texas, it’s when you try to convince your out-of-state brethren of the humanity and efficacy of YOUR choice to support it, that I have to chime in. We DON’T support it here in Georgia, and I will do everything I can to keep it that way.
I absolutely disagree with your interpretation, as do many people more knowledgeable about Constitutional law than I. I’m not a lawyer, but I can read and research and one of my best skills is interpretation of the literature and discerning the validity of arguments vs. emotional noise or bias.
Are you willing to give the children of all illegal immigrants the same diplomatic immunity from prosecution that is given to the children and immediate families of diplomates and ambassadors?
Or are you going to expect them to recognize the jurisdiction of the US and our laws?
The plain reading of all law - especially the Constitution - is the best reading. Only lawyers find deep, hidden penumbra that can only be interpreted by the (right kind of) lawyers.
Re-read the Citizenship Act of 1924. Decades of argument over “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” preceded this Act. And yet, the Legislators chose not to define the term further.
Wong Kim Ark did not say that only children of legal residents are citizens at birth - the requirement was that parents reside in the States.
The US vs. Wong Kim Ark is shamefully equivalent to Dred Scot, in that it reflected a bigotry that no one should be proud of. Chinese were specifically and singly restricted, even those who came to the US legally to work and the expectation, like the Irish and the Italians who were later similarly singled out for restrictions, that they could become citizens.
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.