Bill would deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants

NCTimes ^

[tumblindice]

*See my past posts which use words like "tall concrete wall" "razor wire" "charge Mexico for our expenses" etc. and so on.
And our fighting men don't have to explain anything to anyone about their reasons for walking the line.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Odd that congress gets to decide whos a citizen in this case, but not in others. And in spite of the 14th Amendment.

Not odd, really. The 14th Amendment says that persons born in the U.S. are citizens. Congress can't change that, but they can make other people citzens (and they have-- people born outside the U.S. to citizen parents; etc.). Congress can, and has, also set the procedural rules for how to prove whether or not someone is a citizen (rules of evidence, burdens of proof, etc.)

[Publius6961]

The that part of the 14th Amendment is plain as day and not open to the slightest interpretation:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States "

Not plain as day to me.
What does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to you?
It may surprise you to learn that it may not mean the same to me.

[international american]

"Opponents said the measure was "extreme" and would be likely to face constitutional challenges."

Gee thats tough..too bad they are criminal invaders, huh??

[Lurking Libertarian]

Yep, it does. It doesn't say, however, that little Maria's mother gets to stay in the U.S. I say keep the kid, send momma back to Mexico. The government would only have to do this once or twice to cut way down on women sneaking over the border to have kids just to get to stay in the U.S.

That already is the law-- the "anchor baby" rule was abolished in 1993. If Momma is deported, she now has 3 choices-- take Jr. with her (but he gets a U.S. passport and can come back when he's 18); leave him here with relatives who are legal; or put him up for adoption.

[international american]

With the possible exception of Costa Rica, what American in his/her right mind would want to live in these toilets??

[chemainus]

I'm all for it!! Our "citizenship requirement" or really a lack of standards is ludicrous.

[Clemenza]

Chile's a nice place to live. Buenos Aires has its merits (beautiful women, best steakhouses in the world). Otherwise, I'd agree.

[ozarkgirl]

""Our "citizenship requirement" or really a lack of standards is ludicrous""


Isn't that the truth! We could have the cream of the crop for immigrants, instead we get the cesspool. Lots of people want to come to America, we could have only the best!

[skeeter]

The 14th Amendment says that persons born in the U.S. are citizens. Congress can't change that, but they can make other people citzens (and they have-- people born outside the U.S. to citizen parents; etc.). Congress can, and has, also set the procedural rules for how to prove whether or not someone is a citizen (rules of evidence, burdens of proof, etc.)

But according to congress, a six year old found wandering within our borders is not considered a citizen. Sounds arbitrary to me.

[OneTimeLurker]

Subject to the jurisdiction means subject to the laws of the US. What would you think it means?

[international american]

"Buenos Aires has its merits (beautiful women, best steakhouses in the world"

You caught me on that one : )

[JustAnotherSavage]

btt

[Happy2BMe]

"And our fighting men don't have to explain anything to anyone about their reasons for walking the line."

=================================

No, but our sold-out and bought-out worthless politicians have got a world of explaining to do to our fighting men.

They can start with why they are allowing this nation to be invaded by an unarmed invasion without even blinking.

Kinda makes our fighting men wonder what the hell they are fighting for - a nation without borders?

[monkeywrench]

Exactly! It would seem to me that being an illegal means you are not subjecting yourself to the law.

[Publius6961]

Except for the minor fact that the Supreme Court trumps the Constitution. Sorry, you lose.

[Lurking Libertarian]

But according to congress, a six year old found wandering within our borders is not considered a citizen. Sounds arbitrary to me.

Is not conclusively presumed to be a citizen. If the issue comes up, it will be determined based on whatever evidence there is.

[JustAnotherSavage]

Mr. Carry_okie, was it you who has the correct information on the 14th amendment?

[Czar]

This one ought to be a no-brainer, but it won't be. It will require a bitter battle with the FROBLs and SOILs to get it done.

[Kretek]

If enacted, the bill would stipulate that children born in the United States would be considered American citizens only if born to parents who are citizens or legal residents living in the country.

Not a terribly bad idea. I'd oppose changing it any further than that (some have proposed three generations before citizenship), however.