Hmmm.
Either someone's been reading FR, or someone's been listening to a FReeper...
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 ...
So should legal immigrants born here be granted citizenship?
Well, what else is new? :|
Enough mulling. Just do it?
It's about fricking time! The pandering bastards on Capitol Hill may finally be waking up.
We are not talking about the foreign born.
I was referring to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which bestows citizenship on anyone born in America.
One can build a wall without even an act of Congress. A state could build a wall if it wanted to. But one cannot strip babies born in the US of citizenship without amending the Constitution: 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the States have to agree. (They won't.)
ping
Absolutely correct, although I suspect the luminaries on the Supreme Court may disagree with you, and they appear to be the final arbiters of Constitutional questions. Sections 2-5 of the Fourteenth Amendment use the word "shall," imposing a future obligation upon the government. The first sentence of section 1 uses "all persons [...] are citizens," which rectifies the injust conditions that existed when it was ratified, but does not impose any future or standing obligation upon the government. An originalist, literalist, strict constructionalist, whatever would not find any support for granting citizenship to "anchor babies" in this amendment.
"So should legal immigrants born here be granted citizenship?"
Someone born here isn't an immigrant.
The founding fathers never imagined "anchor babies".
We should find a compromise solution - one which is 100% true to the spirit of the original intent, without leaving the loophole for the anchor baby scam.
Thinking about the practical aspects of this - it might be difficult to have a rule that both parents be legal (since in many cases even long-time American mothers won't be able to present a "father" for such a rule)
How about, real simple. In order to qualify for American citizenship when born, the MOTHER must be a legal resident at the time of birth.
Not in the US on a tourist visa. Not on an expired student visa. Not here illegally.
Mom's an American resident, baby's an American.
Simple. Effective. Yet in no way, discourages (legal) immigration.
In fact, is rewards legal immigration, and following the rules. Something we really, really need.
It should be difficult - the definition of citizen is written in the Constitution. Changing anything in that document should be extremely difficult.
They can succeed all they want... the bill they come up with will be the first Bush vetoes. Unless "cards for everyone" is included in the bill -- any bill they come up with -- Bush will try to stop it. He's taking his position on this to the grave.
Should have been done 15 years ago. We've been caving into arrogant Mexicans and Central Americans for years. They must fix their own nations and stop leeching off us.
The white racist Spanish overlords love it when they can push their unwanted brown skinned masses into the United States. We are idiots to put up with this. But our ruling elites (GWBush, Bill Clinton etc.) love it this way.
Ping-a-ling. Here you...post away on border issues.
Hmmm.
Either someone's been reading FR, or someone's been listening to a FReeper...
jurisdiction n the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law : the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised
Illegal parents, I would expect, can be shown to not be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Children are subject to their parents; would this also place them outside of the "jurisdiction thereof"?
Clearly according to who? I think there is nothing clear about it. There is lots of room for debate about the meaning of the clause in the Constitution: "AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
I don't hold myself out as an expert and I believe it is a gray area but I believe there is historical precedent with for example American Indians being deemed as not subject to our jurisdiction and that exception was created by an act of Congress and ended by an act of Congress and was never deemed unconstitutional. One established principle of our legal system is "consent of the governed". When people come here illegally they clearly have not consented to be governed by our laws and in fact have chosen deliberately to live here OUTSIDE of our legal system. I don't know if it is a ruling or adequately persuasive argument but I do know that just by saying the words "clearly not constitutional" does not make it so. Nothing clear about it and there would be no clear grounds for impeachment.
I like it. Simple, makes them look bad to vote against it, and covers 99% of the problem issues.
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.