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
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 ...
TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; 2good2betrue; 4thefuture; aliens; anchorbabies; gop; illegals; makeitretroactive; tancredo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 361-379 next last
To: .cnI redruM
Seems like the could eventually be twisted against citizens. I don't like it.
Build the wall, but don't start messing with citizenship.
21
posted on
11/04/2005 6:12:56 AM PST
by
x5452
To: Vicomte13
"The Founders"?
I stand corrected. Although I knew it was the 14th amendment, I just wasn't thinking.
At least I got my mistake for the day out of the way early! - LOL!
Cordially,
GE
To: Killborn
Grand Eagle had a good solution: citizenship conferred only for legal aliens.I think it would be a hard sell.
23
posted on
11/04/2005 6:15:21 AM PST
by
rhombus
To: brothers4thID
"and under the jurdisdiction thereof"
To: rhombus
Why do you think that? It doesn't clash with equal protection.
25
posted on
11/04/2005 6:16:41 AM PST
by
Killborn
(Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
To: .cnI redruM
26
posted on
11/04/2005 6:16:43 AM PST
by
Cruz
To: jackbenimble
The Constitution also gives to Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Courts including the Supreme Court. It seems to me that if Congress has enough desire, they can limit birthright citizenship with action that falls short of a Constitutional Amendment.
All of the above is correct. However, for the Congress to deliberately pass a law the is clearly not Constitutional, then to remove jurisdiction from SCOTUS to review cases involving that law would be grounds for impeachment for every Congressional member who voted to do it.
To: Vicomte13
I like doing both. We should build the wall and end anchor babydom. We should select who gets our citizenship based on who benefits us the most.
We should take the next Einstein and if possible, screen for and reject the next Tony Montana. We are under no ethical obligation to make US citizenship easily obtainable for the foreign born.
28
posted on
11/04/2005 6:18:41 AM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(Because change is not something you talk into existence.)
To: Killborn
29
posted on
11/04/2005 6:18:45 AM PST
by
Congressman Billybob
(Do you think Fitzpatrick resembled Captain Queeg, coming apart on the witness stand?)
To: Killborn
The amendment has been misused for years. The wording is sufficient for the removal of our present day birthright citizenship.
And the original intent was not the way it is used today - anchor babies - it was to ensure former slaves were given citizenship.
Really, this amendment should have had an expiration clause, but the authors couldn't have for seen the mess we have today.
To: GrandEagle
I believe that will take a Constitutional amendment. Simply reworking the amendment to allow those born here while their parents are LEGALLY here would be OK with me. Obviously that is what the founders meant.
You're right about the amendment if the Court actually did enforce the text of the Constitution. In recent years, their interest has been pretty selective.
And I don't see why a 'green card baby' or a 'temporary visa baby' should be any more entitled to citizenship than a baby whose mother jumped the border a few days before delivery so it could be her 'anchor baby'.
To: FBD
"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." This is an excellent start for removing the #1 incentive illegals have for coming here, illegally.
Agree?
Now the question becomes.
...what'll the spineless GOPers actually do?
32
posted on
11/04/2005 6:19:51 AM PST
by
Landru
(A sucker born every minute = ~36,288,800 new suckers every year.)
To: .cnI redruM
Somebody pinch me - Is this a dream, the Pubbies are getting a clue ???
33
posted on
11/04/2005 6:19:58 AM PST
by
11th_VA
(Geezee Freepin Peezee ...)
To: Killborn
Why do you think that? It doesn't clash with equal protection.I'm speaking on in terms of public relations only. In effect you'd be running against the Statue of Liberty...give me your tired, your poor...
I know, I know they were legal aliens but I'm speaking about how it would be spun in the media. We'd see one story after another about some poor "immigrant" (aka crimalien) who just came here to work to feed his hungry children, blah, blah, blah... big bad mean xenophobic conservatives...blah, blah, blah...
34
posted on
11/04/2005 6:20:30 AM PST
by
rhombus
To: unixfox
Yep. Not to mention that it would be much easier to implement than a wall. In fact, forget the wall and just end the entitlements and while we're at it, start cracking down on employers who hire ILLEGALS.
35
posted on
11/04/2005 6:20:33 AM PST
by
Mulch
(tm)
To: .cnI redruM
I've been saying that for YEARS!!!
To: 11th_VA
Tancredo has always had one. He's just had to swim upstream against the glacial indifference of his allies in The House.
37
posted on
11/04/2005 6:21:03 AM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(Because change is not something you talk into existence.)
To: smith288
. Stop them at the border and the anchor baby scam wont occur. I agree. That would help a lot. But lots of our illegals don't come across the border but simply overstay a valid tourist visa past its expiration date. What will we do about them?
One thing I think that would help a lot would be to reform the Family Reunification parts of our immigration law so even if the baby is a citizen, it can never sponsor in its parents as citizens when the baby becomes an adult. There is a fairly firm principle in our legal system that people should not benefit from their crimes. The illegals should NEVER become citizens as a result of crossing our borders illegally and having a baby.
38
posted on
11/04/2005 6:21:20 AM PST
by
jackbenimble
(Import the third world, become the third world)
To: Congressman Billybob
Embassies are considered foreign territory. It would only make sense that a person born there is not a US citizen.
39
posted on
11/04/2005 6:21:44 AM PST
by
Killborn
(Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
To: x5452
Build the wall, but don't start messing with citizenship. Exactly- would everyonr have to take special steps to prove that your child is an American citizen at birth? How you determine whether someone's parents were here legally or illegally? Do we really want situation where an adult who believes he or she is a citizen finds out they are not a citizen because of some glitch in their mother's visa during birth?
40
posted on
11/04/2005 6:22:46 AM PST
by
LWalk18
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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