Skip to comments.
Birthright citizenship law targeted by Congress
Sierra Vista Herald, Sierra Vista Arizona (AP Story) ^
| Nov 26, 2005
Posted on 11/26/2005 5:41:28 PM PST by SandRat
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
hmmmmm,.....
1
posted on
11/26/2005 5:41:29 PM PST
by
SandRat
To: HiJinx; Spiff; idratherbepainting; AZHSer; Sabertooth; Marine Inspector; A Navy Vet; ...
verrrry interesting,.........
2
posted on
11/26/2005 5:41:59 PM PST
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
To: SandRat
Its insane. Those babies born here should be deemed citizens of their parents' countries, not American citizens. Citizenship should be granted only to lawful immigrants and their children should eligible for it only after a number of years has passed. No other country on earth makes citizenship a right. Birthright citizenship has been abused and its time to end it before it bankrupts this land.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
3
posted on
11/26/2005 5:47:43 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: SandRat
I have always been against birthright citizenship. Where you were born shouldn't mean anything, where you legally live should.
4
posted on
11/26/2005 5:48:05 PM PST
by
Barte45
(Conservative Christian @ Heart)
To: SandRat
He argues the words subject to the jurisdiction thereof suggests the 14th Amendment does not apply to children of undocumented immigrants Why take the chance, that the above argument will fail?
I say go for it with a Amendment. The first side to get on board with this, will stake out the territory for the anti illegal immigrant contention.
5
posted on
11/26/2005 5:49:15 PM PST
by
Michael.SF.
(The other side (in war on terror) is not evil--they just have a different perspective-Chris Mathews)
To: SandRat
"To deny citizenship to a defenseless child who had no say in being born here would be absurd. It would be unjust."
Denying her illegal anchor baby citizenship is unjust. That's rich.
To: SandRat
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. I predict trouble sneaking any change to this past the Supreme Court.
You would have to make some contention base on the middle phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". What exactly that phrase means may be subject to discussion. Presumably the children of Diplomats would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States even if they were born here. But to say the child of an illegal immigrant born nere is not subject to the Jurisdiction of the US is going to be a stretch.
It sounds to me like a constitutional ammendment would be needed.
7
posted on
11/26/2005 5:50:18 PM PST
by
adamsjas
To: adamsjas
The 14th Admendment empowers Congress to address it with appropriate legislation. It seems to me the courts are required to give deference to Congress' judgment about the status of foreigners. They do not have an automatic entitlement upon America's generosity, even if their children are born here.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
8
posted on
11/26/2005 5:53:22 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Barte45
Where you were born shouldn't mean anything, where you legally live should. I am sure it was an oversight, but the citizenship of your parents should also be taken into consideration. For example:
Suppose you have of a French couple, both of whom are here in the USA on a legal visa, with no intention of becoming citizens, she gives birth, is that child automatically a citizen of the USA?
I say it should not be automatic.
Now reverse it, American couple in France, she gives birth. French or USA citizen?
I would say that at 18, the child could select citizenship, one or the other (depending on French law).
9
posted on
11/26/2005 5:55:20 PM PST
by
Michael.SF.
(The other side (in war on terror) is not evil--they just have a different perspective-Chris Mathews)
To: adamsjas
"You would have to make some contention base on the middle phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". What exactly that phrase means may be subject to discussion."
The author of the amendment wrote about exactly what it means.
We're misinterpreting it NOW.
This will bring it back in line with the original intent.
10
posted on
11/26/2005 5:55:25 PM PST
by
adam_az
(It's the border, stupid!)
To: SandRat
Time to call a few congress critters?
To: SandRat
It would seem to me that an illegal alien is technically 'not here'. In any event, immediate deportation would (should) be the result of discovery. No trial, just a hearing to protect any legal aliens that may have run afoul of the system. Any children of illegals, irrespective of their birth coordinates would be the responsibility of the parents and the country of origin of the parents.
Criminals who violate U.S. sovereignty shouldn't qualify for rights and privileges when so many honest immigrants patiently go through legal channels to become real citizens. More criminals we do not need
12
posted on
11/26/2005 6:00:32 PM PST
by
heldmyw
To: adam_az
The author of the amendment wrote about exactly what it means. And this is written where?
The article simply states:
argues the words subject to the jurisdiction thereof suggests the 14th Amendment does not apply to children of undocumented immigrants because their parents are living in the United States illegally.
If the parents are not subject to the jusisdiction of the US, then by what means could they be arrested and deported?
13
posted on
11/26/2005 6:03:31 PM PST
by
adamsjas
To: MissAmericanPie
14
posted on
11/26/2005 6:04:08 PM PST
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
To: goldstategop
They do not have an automatic entitlement upon America's generosity, even if their children are born here. As a matter of practice they do and that must change. A constitutional amendment would take longer and it's not certain to get the proper number of state legislatures on board to pass anyway.
15
posted on
11/26/2005 6:06:01 PM PST
by
Graybeard58
(Remember and pray for Sgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
To: SandRat
--serious subject that this is , it still reminds me of the retort of the Duke of Wellington when someone suggested that since he was born in Dublin he was Irish--
--he replied that being born in Ireland no more made one Irish than being born in a stable made one a horse---
16
posted on
11/26/2005 6:07:13 PM PST
by
rellimpank
(Don't believe anything about firearms or explosives stated by the mass media:NRABenefactor)
To: SandRat
Larry Elder has been doing a lot on this lately ... as well as Doug MacIntyre. KABC radio.
To: adam_az
It will take a constitutional amendment to change the 14th Amendment. Unless it overrules itself, the Supreme Court is bound by its 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible themselves to be naturalized is a citizen of the United States nevertheless and entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase "and subject to the jurisdiciton thereof," was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation.
Do you think there are the votes on the Supreme Court to reverse itself, or 2/3 of each house of congress and 3/4 the state legislatures to change this?
18
posted on
11/26/2005 6:15:53 PM PST
by
Procyon
To: SandRat
As I understand it, after the civil war and during reconstruction (ugh, I hate that word) the birthright clause was kicked into the 14th amendment to insure that children born of ex slaves would be automatically become citizens. This was laudable and a good thing, but, it sure as hell did not take into account of being over run by criminal trespassers whom broke the nations laws to get their kids born here.
It is still debated if the 14th amendment is even legal, as it applies only to the states, not to the federal government.
It is time to give the 14th amendment a damned good test case before SCOTUS, after a conservative or two are appointed as justices.
19
posted on
11/26/2005 6:16:28 PM PST
by
Ursus arctos horribilis
("It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" Emiliano Zapata 1879-1919)
To: SandRat
This is exactly what I and others have written in FreeRepublic threads six months or more ago. This is within the power of Congress, precisely because the 14th Amendment empowers Congress to enforce it thought appropriate legislation. This sounds like appropriate legislation to me.
John / Billybob
20
posted on
11/26/2005 6:27:56 PM PST
by
Congressman Billybob
(Do you think Fitzpatrick resembled Captain Queeg, coming apart on the witness stand?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 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