Skip to comments.
House Conservatives Want End to Birthright Citizenship
Human Events ^
| 12/9/05
| Robert B. Bluey
Posted on 12/09/2005 11:22:39 AM PST by Jean S
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 next last
1
posted on
12/09/2005 11:22:40 AM PST
by
Jean S
To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; A CA Guy; ...
To: JeanS
End birthright citizenship for illegal aliens This is huge in my opinion.
3
posted on
12/09/2005 11:24:31 AM PST
by
ncountylee
(Dead terrorists smell like victory)
To: JeanS
And make it retroactive to 1980!
4
posted on
12/09/2005 11:24:37 AM PST
by
BenLurkin
(O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
To: BenLurkin
That would be an ex post facto law.
5
posted on
12/09/2005 11:25:31 AM PST
by
Borges
To: BenLurkin
BINGO!! // DO ALL OF THE ABOVE.
6
posted on
12/09/2005 11:25:36 AM PST
by
Lowell
(The voice from beyond the edge!)
To: ncountylee
Yup - the Anchor Baby syndrome is a huge loophole in illegal immigration.
7
posted on
12/09/2005 11:25:39 AM PST
by
mallardx
To: JeanS
Make unlawful presence in the U.S. a felony Another key element.
8
posted on
12/09/2005 11:25:55 AM PST
by
ncountylee
(Dead terrorists smell like victory)
To: Borges
That would be an ex post facto law. But retroactive tax increases aren't?...........
9
posted on
12/09/2005 11:26:31 AM PST
by
Red Badger
(Dan rather didn't say "Courage", he said "Couric"..................)
To: BenLurkin
"And make it retroactive to 1980!"
That's a big 'no-no' in American law. See Article I Sec 9 US Constitution: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
10
posted on
12/09/2005 11:27:40 AM PST
by
NJ_gent
(Modernman should not have been banned.)
To: JeanS
I'd like to see it, but this might make negotiating difficult--unless it's a throwaway card. It would be very difficult to change a law this old.
A back-up position might be to allow for citizenship, but to require the parents to return, and disallow the partents rec'ing any benefits from the anchor.
Wow...this'd sure make a difference at the Thomason Gen OB in El Paso!!
11
posted on
12/09/2005 11:29:08 AM PST
by
Mamzelle
(The best offense-- is the unbeatable defense...Darrell K. Royal)
To: Red Badger
"But retroactive tax increases aren't?..........."
Ex Post Facto generally refers to laws that are criminally punitive. In other words, we criminalize something that's currently legal, then go back and prosecute everyone who did it while it was still legal. I agree that retroactive tax increases are horrible in principle, I don't think a Constitutional challenge to them would hold.
12
posted on
12/09/2005 11:30:59 AM PST
by
NJ_gent
(Modernman should not have been banned.)
To: gubamyster
Theres Conservatives in the house?!?!?
/sarc.
13
posted on
12/09/2005 11:31:46 AM PST
by
HHKrepublican_2
(OP Spread the Truth....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535158/posts)
To: JeanS
House conservatives today announced plans to amend a Republican-sponsored immigration reform bill with language calling for the construction of a 2,000-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border and a provision that would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. whose parents arent citizens. This should have been done yesterday. Any hopes of a guest worker program, even if it's only limited to agriculture must end anchor babies and seal the borders if they expect it to get sufficient support from the general public.
To: JeanS
I am
ALL for it!
Lets start flooding the phonelines to Washington and get this thing rolling.
15
posted on
12/09/2005 11:37:45 AM PST
by
johnny7
(“You have a corpse in a car, minus a head, in the garage. Take me to it.”)
To: JeanS
Excellent. This is a huge part of the problem. They know that once they have a baby here they will never be deported and they will eventually be able to sponsor the rest of their family to join them. We're providing a huge incentive for people to immigrate here illegally.
16
posted on
12/09/2005 11:38:43 AM PST
by
cdrw
(Freedom and responsibility are inseparable)
To: JeanS
Sounds great, where do I sign?
17
posted on
12/09/2005 11:39:59 AM PST
by
gondramB
( We don't get no government loan and no one sends a check from home-we just do what what we wanna)
To: Red Badger
" But retroactive tax increases aren't?..........."
Are they allowed to pass retroactive taxes? I would think that would be unconstitutional.
18
posted on
12/09/2005 11:41:17 AM PST
by
gondramB
( We don't get no government loan and no one sends a check from home-we just do what what we wanna)
To: JeanS
How do they plan on getting around that little ole 14th Amendment to the Constitution thingy that says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"?
Are they talking Constitutional amendment?
19
posted on
12/09/2005 11:42:24 AM PST
by
seowulf
To: HHKrepublican_2
"Theres Conservatives in the house?!?!?"
They let a few token conservatives in but they have to sit in the back and stay quiet. /not totally sarcastic
20
posted on
12/09/2005 11:42:54 AM PST
by
gondramB
( We don't get no government loan and no one sends a check from home-we just do what what we wanna)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 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