Posted on 11/04/2005 5:54:41 AM PST by .cnI redruM
House Republicans are looking closely at ending birthright citizenship and building a barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border as they search for solutions to illegal immigration.
A task force of party leaders and members active on immigration has met since the summer to try to figure out where consensus exists, and several participants said those two ideas have floated to the top of the list of possibilities to be included either in an immigration-enforcement bill later this year or in a later comprehensive immigration overhaul.
"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, Colorado Republican, who is participating in the "unity dinners," the group of Republicans trying to find consensus on immigration.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Fact is, the US has given much to the world, including communism. But, we haven't particularly noticed the modern corporations that we created any more than we have noticed the system of general private property we created. Both of these came up after the Civil War and both together are the basis of our present dominance of the entire world in commerce. That is capitalism, which we like to say along with other nice words such as freedom and democracy. We don't actually know what any of these things are, but we have them anyway, and we can lose them just as easily as we stumbled into them. We need to get the whole world into the idea of general private property, and freedom and democracy come with that free of extra charge. Then we can finally bury the old communism vampire along with its proles and everybody be bourgeois. The whole planet.
BTW, private property is also not explicitly in the Constitution, so the USSC was free to interpret intent any way they wanted in Kelo. Just like Tom Scott got the right for his corporation to own other corporations from the 14th, which doesn't mention the modern corporation but was addressing slavery and seems to preclude persons from owning persons, which the modern corporation is and does.
Term-limits, anyone?
Whatever happened to that concept?
We've got old fogies like Byrd, Ted K, Dingel who just celebrated his 50th year there, and he took over his father's old seat!
It's enough!
I'm for term limits, especially for Senators. When states keep sending us these winners decade after decade we all have to suffer. Let them do a couple of terms and go home.
We'll never get term limits though.
Our "public servants" can't give up the high life to which they've grown accustomed.
Won't this require a Constitutional amendment?
They are held accountable by other documents, not the Constitution. They are subject to whatever jurisdiction we deport them to.
Even if one wants to read it -regardless of authors stated intent- to mean the newborn "person" is now a "citizen". In no way would this apply to the parents.
I suppose we could give them the option of leaving with the "citizen" or without.
I have read your thoughts all day (at work and now at home). My brain has turned to mush. Completely overloaded. Your intentions are good and fair, I disagree with many of your thoughts but you make good arguments.
All day I've tried to figure out, are you a politician or a lawyer? I pick lawyer. Am I right?
I don't quite follow your question.
Presently, any foreigner, child or adult, who moves here is not automatically a citizen.
Sorry, but you're making an originalist argument, not a literalist one.
The point is that by being here they've evaded the jurisdiction of the US, not behaved as if they're subject to it. Thus, a citizenship on those grounds is not supportable.
BTTT
I think I'd have to join you. But I think I have a better chance of hitting the lottery, and I don't even play.
They may try to end the anchor baby scam, but I doubt it would withstand Constitutional Muster. Not unless the Constitution was Amended.
I'm convinced the SCOTUS will declare any such law passed by Congress, unconstitutional. As they should
(note I am in favor of ending anchor babies, but not at the expense of the Law of our Land)
I'm doing neither. I'm repeating the authors "argument". Then again, I guess you can't get more originalist than that.
He's right.
No, this is totally wrong.
I'm as against illegal immigration as anybody, but if a kid is born here, and lives here with his parents, it's not his fault his parents broke the law. He didn't chose who his parents were. He should be allowed to stay.
Bump!!
This one certainly got some traction...
Off to give away NRA money, you have a great day!
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.