Skip to comments.
GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^
| November 4, 2005
| By Stephen Dinan
Posted on 11/04/2005 5:54:41 AM PST by .cnI redruM
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 361-379 next last
To: x5452
Creating situations for our government to arbitrate our right to citizenship is very dangerous. Any granting of such powers enables the government to further expand upon them, and deny the basic rights of citizenship. It is a pandoras box that must remain closed.Precisely. Thank you.
Don't give the government too much power - remember, as much as it seems unlikely, there will be a time when the Dims have a majority. Whatever power you give "our" Congress you are also giving to them.
121
posted on
11/04/2005 8:05:11 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: GrandEagle; Carry_Okie
Looks like you folks are correct! - Darn, that's three for me before lunch!
Well, don't jump the gun there. I'm thinking Cary is right now and that I've been swallowing the pro-immigrant bilge.
Looks like a strong precedent against any argument for anchor babies.
OTOH, it might take a strongly worded constitutional amendment to get Congress to enforce the borders. But then, we are back to the matter of politics and strategy, not constitutional law.
A Paleo-FReeper salute for Carry's erudite posting. Reminds me of the Golden Era of FreeRepublic. But then, it's not over as long as we get posts like these.
I notice Carry's seniority date is from the Xlinton Reign Of Terror so that explains her diligence on constitutional matters. Too bad it doesn't explain my own laxness and my (now corrected) swallowing of the 'anchor baby' propaganda.
To: .cnI redruM
Tom Tancredo has more balls than President Bush ever will.
I hope this goes somewhere, but I'm just assuming the spineless Republicans will collapse under the weight of the "racism" charges from the Left.
123
posted on
11/04/2005 8:07:14 AM PST
by
GianniV
To: LWalk18
The parent reaps the benefits of having a citizen child.
124
posted on
11/04/2005 8:07:30 AM PST
by
Flyer
(The Internet, my dog and you ~ http://dahtcom.com/masoncam/)
To: Borax Queen; Czar; Stellar Dendrite
"There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are the children of folks who come into this country illegally," said Rep. Tom Tancredo You seen this yet???
To: Flyer
The parent reaps the benefits of having a citizen child. Then remove those benefits by ending sponsorship or prohibiting a citizen from sponsoring someone who has come here or is here illegally.
126
posted on
11/04/2005 8:10:08 AM PST
by
LWalk18
To: LWalk18
Precisely. Let the child retain citizenship, but eliminate the parent's ability to exploit that citizenship for his/her own benefit.
127
posted on
11/04/2005 8:12:20 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: LWalk18
You seriously don't think there is a difference between a documented LEGAL immigrant and an illegal immigrant? How does one prove their parents were here legally? No one is talking about making this retroactive.
This isn't about curbing LEGAL immigration, it's about the rights of LEGAL citizens, alien or native, IMHO.
To: .cnI redruM
Ending the anchor baby scam would be a big help.
(sniffing)(sniffing)
Ahhhh, I love the smell of an approaching election in the morning.
129
posted on
11/04/2005 8:12:57 AM PST
by
Kluster
(FIRE DREIER)
To: LWalk18
Then what do we do with all the newborn citizens when we deport the parents? We can't deport the children if we grant them citizenship.
130
posted on
11/04/2005 8:14:40 AM PST
by
Flyer
(The Internet, my dog and you ~ http://dahtcom.com/masoncam/)
To: smith288
Thats the real problem. Stop them at the border and the anchor baby scam wont occur. Wishful thinking, I am afraid.
131
posted on
11/04/2005 8:17:08 AM PST
by
itsahoot
(Any country that does not control its borders, is not a country. Ronald Reagan)
To: austinaero
You seriously don't think there is a difference between a documented LEGAL immigrant and an illegal immigrant? How does one prove their parents were here legally? No one is talking about making this retroactive. Not every illegal immigrant snuck across the border. IIRC, most illegals entered the U.S. legally with visas and have overstayed. So yes, sometimes it is a matter of paperwork. And questions of how to prove it are valid, IMO. Are we going to DHS agents stationed at hospital to check each parent's citizenship or resident status? Or would you need to carry around you parent's birth citizenship papers along with your own to prove citizenship?
132
posted on
11/04/2005 8:19:49 AM PST
by
LWalk18
To: AmishDude
with that blowhard Tancredo in charge, it'll be nothing but a platform for the stroking of his ego. No candidate for president, Republican, or Democrat will get elected, unless they adopt some of this "Nut Jobs" attitude about the illegal issue, and you can take that to the bank.
133
posted on
11/04/2005 8:20:45 AM PST
by
itsahoot
(Any country that does not control its borders, is not a country. Ronald Reagan)
To: Flyer
Then what do we do with all the newborn citizens when we deport the parents? We can't deport the children if we grant them citizenship. Illegal immigrants who are deported do take their children with them. The citizen children can come back as adults and claim their U.S. citizenship.
134
posted on
11/04/2005 8:21:42 AM PST
by
LWalk18
To: LWalk18
Ahh, I see your question now. That sounds more like a matter of logistics than a philosophical or conceptual difference. Thanks for the clarification.
I don't really have the answer except to say maybe the lack of a social security card might be used as an indicator. It's not about stopping the birth of any babies, it's about the paperwork surrounding the baby after the birth (and the family that gets sponsored).
To: LWalk18
But the child is really the one who is getting the right, not his or her parent. As things currently stand, they are given rights superior to the babies of American citizens. They are automatically citizens of two countries (dual citizens) or if the baby's illegal parents happen to have come here illegally from two different countries, they are potentially tri-citizens.
I am not particularly jealous of their citizenship in various third world hell-holes but I am very concerned that their dual (or tri) citizenship status leaves them with divided loyalties that could potentially make them less than loyal American citizens. For example they could be pursuaded to vote in ways that were not necessarily in the best interests of other Americans.
136
posted on
11/04/2005 8:26:21 AM PST
by
jackbenimble
(Import the third world, become the third world)
To: jackbenimble
It seems to me that if Congress has enough desire, they can limit birthright citizenship with action that falls short of a Constitutional Amendment. It seems to me that you are right, so why has congress failed to exercize its authority?
I have felt for a long time now that congress's true will is carried out by the courts. They let the courts do what they know their constituents would not approve of. The why of it is what alludes me.
137
posted on
11/04/2005 8:28:00 AM PST
by
itsahoot
(Any country that does not control its borders, is not a country. Ronald Reagan)
To: AmishDude
One, they're also bringing up issues like a "wall" that has an intimidating tone to it and distract from the main issue. A moat, with hungry crocodiles, would be a cooler option.
138
posted on
11/04/2005 8:28:49 AM PST
by
GraniteStateConservative
(...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
To: GrandEagle
review cases involving that law would be grounds for impeachment for every Congressional member who voted to do it. Right, but they would have to impeach themselves, how would that work, in your opinion.
139
posted on
11/04/2005 8:30:03 AM PST
by
itsahoot
(Any country that does not control its borders, is not a country. Ronald Reagan)
To: jackbenimble
We could make it so a child with duel citizenship, once they reached legal adulthood or even beforehand, would have to renounce his or her citizenship in all other countries. I believe that naturalized citizens were made to give up their citizenship in their home country prior to being sworn in as a U.S. citizen- I believe that they have gotten rid of that rule, however.
140
posted on
11/04/2005 8:32:51 AM PST
by
LWalk18
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 361-379 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson