Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 (Hunter and Tancredo: Cosponsors to End Illegal Anchor Babies)

Library of Congress ^

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces.

[Cheburashka]

Even if it passes it would not hold up to a Supreme Court challenge.

See: United States v. Wong Kim Ark,

---

Ark was decided on English Common Law, that is, the law in place on the day we declared our independence from Great Britain. English Common Law can be amended or repealed by Congress.

Otherwise Congress could never pass a law.

[RightWhale]

Not without a constitutional amendment

No further amendment of the Constitution is necessary, nor is further amendment advisable. Do not further amend the Constitution.

[Cheburashka]

As of now, the only people considered to be not under our jurisdiction are foreign diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity. If you say illegal aliens are not under our jurisdiction, how can we prosecute them for illegal entry, or for crimes they commit while here? If they are subject to our jurisdiction for some purposes, they are subject to our jurisdiction for purposes of the 14th Amendment.

---

Thou speakest correctly.

[Defiant]

It's not time of war, and not war against Mexicans.

If we got into a serious, civilization threatening war with Islam, I would not oppose removing Muslims from our midst. But it would have to be a total war, and the President would have to do it the right way, suspending habeas corpus under the constitution because of a threat of invasion, with invaders in our midst. That is not the case with Mexicans, and therefore law must rule, not personal will, yours or mine.

[wardaddy]

Look at how hard the Roe v Wade people worked to get an amendment

they did not work that hard....about two and one half years of legal work and SCOTUS ruled and that was it...

it is much harder to undo rulings than to make them

btw....recognizing that the Senate will never pass an anti-anchor baby legislation piece with the body it now has is simply realistic and not indicative as to my efforts expended having fought the illegals issue here and politically for years.

[Melas]

Wow, what are you smoking?

[Cheburashka]

Hope it’s retroactive 20 years.

---

Article I, Section 9 - No ex post facto laws.

Sorry.

[From One - Many]

I'll agree, with all but the mexican mention....
believe it or not, I believe we are at war with mexico
but said war is undeclared as is the one with islam.
otherwise I think we basically agree. MHO

[Regulator]

This would overrule Wong Kim Ark.

Remember that the decision was an interpretation of Common Law relations between a feudal lord and his vassals.

The brief by John Eastman and Ed Meese in Hamdi explains cogently why using feudal notions to interpret the 14^th was wrong.

All of which is irrelevant once Congress, not the Supreme Court, clarifies the Amendment by Statute, which is what this law does.

[trumandogz]

I am not stating what I wish to be true, but rather the reality of the issue.

Yes, Congress will not pass and Bush will not sign.

If somehow it would reach the SCOTUS the Justices would look at the 14th as well as Wong Kim Ark and Plyer and strike down the law.

[From One - Many]

oh, according to the body count mexico is winning.....
and that's a fact.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

I agree with you. Let them spend their laundered money in our country. Better for us.

It is the hypocrisy that bothers me.

She can go to our country and have all the hairs she wants yanked out of her body for all a care. But to give birth to her brats in the U.S. so they can become U.S. citizens rankles me about the hate these folks have for us.

How many off shore muslims are doing the same thing and then taking them back home and teaching them to hate the U.S.?

This is my point which I didn’t express very well. I keep forgetting I live in another culture and forget to explain things.

[Carry_Okie]

See: United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Have you read that monstrosity? It's very likely to be overturned. Here is a fairly comprehensive post dealing with the topic.

[Calpernia]

That will leave a mark!

:)

[Defiant]

You are confused. Every person in the US is required to follow the law or is subject to arrest, illegal aliens, diplomats, resident aliens and citizens. Diplomats have immunity if they don't follow the law, but that means they can't be punished, not that the law doesn't apply to them. Anyway, the issue for citizenship is, to whom do you owe your allegiance? It is an old concept, I know, for a nation that is long removed from fealty and nationalism, but it is a concept that the people who framed the amendment understood. They knew that if a Mexican snuck across the Rio Grande and had a baby, there was no issue--they could send the whole family back. If an Indian tribe in the territories had children, they were not US citizens, they were just untamed Indians.

Now, if an Indian in upstate NY had a baby, it was an American. Why? Because that tribe had signed treaties and submitted to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The question is whether the person sneaking across has submitted to our jurisdiction, has become one of us just by being here. Is the child of a tourist here for two weeks a US citizen? By law, yes. By constitution, no. That law can be changed.

[Carry_Okie]

That's why Congress passed a law, I believe in the 20's, that give citizenship to anyone born in the US.

They didn't. It was US v. Wong Kim Ark.

By a strict reading of the 14th (and a clear understanding of Natural Law parentage), Congress doesn't have the power to make anchor babies into citizens.

[Defiant]

Are you even remotely familiar with the facts of the cases you are citing? They are not on point. Not just that, but do you realize how ironic it is you cite a case from 1898 when the justices routinely strike down decisions they made only 20 years ago.

[Cheburashka]

It could not be retroactive Australia is removing citizenships from mooselimbs

---

Australia is not governed by the United States Constitution, we are. Consult a specialist in the Australian Constitution to find out why they can do that.

[From One - Many]

oh, fiddle dee, I was only stating an example and if we desired such here in the states, I believe we could begin removing / revoking citizenships from people if we had just cause, just as Australia is doing.

[Defiant]

Congress did pass a law that gave citizenship to anyone born in the US, and I believe it was in the 20s. Someone in this thread cited Wong Kim Ark, and I went to the link and actually read it, and Wong Kim Ark stands for the proposition that anyone born of legal residents in the US is a US citizen. Anything beyond that would be dicta....for you non-lawyers, that means it would be something said that is not necessary, that goes beyond the basis for the ruling, and therefore not binding.