Posted on 05/11/2005 12:11:39 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
!!!!!!!!!!
Ping
It's being violated by the mother, not the newborn. As the law currently stands at least.
- HTML Bootcamp (Cyber patriot training)
- The HTML Campfire
- Formatting Messages with Outlook Express (HTML Bootcamp)
- Basic html formatting
- R U new? Some Tips....
- HTML for FReeper Newbies
- HTML Sandbox (Original Thread)
- HTML Sandbox (Thread Two)
- HTML Sandbox (Thread Three)
- HTML Sandbox (Latest Thread)
- Reference HTML Cheatsheet
(Also This for New Freepers)
- Revised & Updated! -- THE LEXICON OF FREEREPUBLIC -- (FR dictionary, more help for newcomers!)
- Fifth Edition of the Lexicon of FreeRepublic * * A helpful FR dictionary for newcomers * *
- Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints
- Way too many duplicates and vanities. Please read - again. (Welcome Newbies)
- Posting refresher course - Please read
Thanks for the Ping ED
You're welcome! Good to see you!
The newborn doesn't "become" a citizen, under current law they *are* a citizen, just as you and I were when we were born. It's a matter of definition, not of change of status.
Sen. Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the Amendment, declared in 1866:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
I'd like to see a source for this quotation. It's somewhat self contradictory on it's face. If the words "born of" where substituted for "are", it would make more logical sense. I also wonder about the distinction between "foreigners" and "aliens", since they seem like synonyms to me. If it read that way, even children of permanent residents would not be citizens, since they are still "aliens".
I'm extremely leery of inserting "understood" words into the Constitution, where the words of the Constitution are clear and consistent as written. That's how we got to a living document and "right of people" really means "power of the states".
However I don't think that's the real issue, the real issue is all those federal government benefits for anyone, as they are completely unconstitutional. If you remove the "anchor" provisions of law, and send the parents home, regardless of any US Citizen children, that alone would probably solve the problem without reinterpreting the Constitution, as the vast majority would not leave their kids here. and if the kids want to come back when they are on their own, that would be OK. In fact I know two people in just that situation, their parents were either illegals or possibly participants in some old temporary "work permit" type system, who after they were born returned to Mexico. Both are hard working, tax paying, citizens.
In the context of this article, "anchors away" is correct.
When sea-bound, anchors aweigh is correct. In this case, anchors away is a "play on words."
"Aweigh" was my first thought also. I've learned that FReepers are really smart, though, especially when I think I am smarter. :-) That's why I waited (not "weighted") to think about it. LOL.
Someone said, 'Really a "no-brainer". '
I ditto that. And a 'no brainer' is an easy issue to pound home. The trick is to find a leader who is willing to say it on the campaign trail.
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.