Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP-led push to end birthright citizenship brewing in U.S. House
The Monitor ^ | November 20,2005 | Daniel Perry

Posted on 11/20/2005 12:51:07 PM PST by Icelander

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

1 posted on 11/20/2005 12:51:08 PM PST by Icelander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Icelander

and a foreign born should never become the President of the USA. No, not even Arnold.


2 posted on 11/20/2005 12:53:48 PM PST by Icelander (Legal Resident Since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Icelander

'subject to the jurisdiction' is the critical phrase. So long as illegals are getting gov't assistance of any kind, they are subject to the jurisdiction.


3 posted on 11/20/2005 12:54:25 PM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Icelander

Interesting debate, and I can see the argument that with modern transportation systems and medicine, being born in a particular place is not as meaningful as 50 or 100 years ago. 75 years ago one did not just happen to be born someplace while your 8 month pregnant mom was visiting.


4 posted on 11/20/2005 12:58:38 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

"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."

Senator Jacob Howard,
co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters4608


5 posted on 11/20/2005 12:59:53 PM PST by flashbunny (LOCKBOX: Where most republicans keep their gonads after they arrive in Washington D.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JLS

Visiting? More like searching for a green card.


6 posted on 11/20/2005 1:01:15 PM PST by SC33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Icelander
— A Republican-led effort in the U.S. House of Representatives seeks to change a constitutional amendment that grants American citizenship to any child born on the nation’s soil.

It doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It just requires the courts to apply the 14th amendment as written.

7 posted on 11/20/2005 1:01:30 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey hey ho ho Andy Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Icelander
A Republican-led effort in the U.S. House of Representatives seeks to change a constitutional amendment that grants American citizenship to any child born on the nation’s soil.

Could it be that congressional Republicans are finally growing a spine after being patsies all this time??

8 posted on 11/20/2005 1:02:10 PM PST by Prime Choice (Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borax Queen; Czar
U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Georgia, authored the reform act, securing 60 co-sponsors; nine of them are Texas Republicans: Kevin Brady, John R. Carter, Michael K. Conaway, John Abney Culberson, Sam Johnson, Kenny Marchant, Randy Neugebauer, Pete Sessions and Lamar Smith.

ping

9 posted on 11/20/2005 1:02:34 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Icelander; SwinneySwitch

BTTT


10 posted on 11/20/2005 1:02:40 PM PST by Fiddlstix (Tagline Repair Service. Let us fix those broken Taglines. Inquire within(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
It doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It just requires the courts to apply the 14th amendment as written.

The same courts that hold the McCain-Feingold Act to be constitutional and any reference to God or the Ten Commandments to be unconstitutional? Fat chance o' that.

11 posted on 11/20/2005 1:03:32 PM PST by Prime Choice (Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

That's to the good. There was another opinion by one of the co-authors of the 14th that allowed the corporation to be interpreted as a person, and that was in spite of nothing in the minutes that implied such an interpretation. Many will not accept the words from the horse's mouth, but only what actually appeared in the Amendment.


12 posted on 11/20/2005 1:08:03 PM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

The SCOTUS won'y apply almost any part of the Constitution as it is written, why should the 14th Amendment be he exception?


13 posted on 11/20/2005 1:08:51 PM PST by pierrem15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

wow!


14 posted on 11/20/2005 1:09:54 PM PST by Borax Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Borax Queen

I hope this isn't just for face time but is real (but I'm skeptical)


15 posted on 11/20/2005 1:10:49 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

I know, I have to suppress my enthusiasm every time I hear a smidgeon of good news. It's all part of their plan to make us think they are actually doing something.


16 posted on 11/20/2005 1:14:46 PM PST by Borax Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SC33

Visiting? More like searching for a green card.
________________________________________________________

Despite your parocial views, a reason to change US policy is not some issue that just affects a small part of the country. Your view might be some of it. Another issue is that we have had terrorist in Gitmo who only have US citizenship becaue they were born here when their parents were on student visa. That was not looking for a green card, but rather a complication in our national defense and gives intrusive federal judges a chance to get involved du to a technicality.

Despite the anti-Mexican faction on here, all us policy is not going to be run on that single issue.


17 posted on 11/20/2005 1:17:30 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Icelander
Finally

and a foreign born should never become the President of the USA. No, not even Arnold.

Exactly !!

18 posted on 11/20/2005 1:17:44 PM PST by Dustbunny (Main Stream Media -- Making 'Max Headroom' a reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Borax Queen

that's what I do think....how sad, no?


19 posted on 11/20/2005 1:19:13 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Icelander

This is just more window dressing.

Instead of this they should just secure the borders so nobody can come in.

Even if the kid doesn't get citizenship, nobody is going to go house to house, ask for papers and drag the illegals kicking and screaming across the border.

It's time we start focusing on the real issue, which is to stop the in-flow.


20 posted on 11/20/2005 1:22:34 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson