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

Library of Congress ^

[Calpernia]

>>>>I am not defeatist,

>>>>I simply understand what is possible and what is not.

That is called an oxymoron.

[freekitty]

It’s getting to where it isn’t up to these scum anymore. It’s up to us.

[Defiant]

I understand the point you were making, but the way you wrote it made it seem as though you were claiming that the law I referenced never existed. What you are saying is that a law passed by Congress in the 20s was unauthorized because of the 14th amendment. I cite the law because it provides an indication that the congress believed that such a law was necessary to clarify the point. And if they thought that, it is debatable whether the 15th amendment provides automatic citizenship, and if that is so, then a law denying such citizenship could well be Constitutional.

Now, you are introducing the 14th amendment to make a different argument. That is fine, I am in agreement with you on the immigration issue in general. I have not examined your 14th amendment argument, but I do believe that the Congress has the power to deny citizenship to anchor babies under the 15th.

There are a lot of constitutional arguments to be re-examined if conservatives ever get a majority on the court. Original intent is an important concept, and if it gets enshrined as the proper way to look at cases, which is Scalia's view, then all cases that were decided using other methods become open to re-examination. I don't know that Roberts and Alito, conservative as they are, are open to re-examining a vast body of case law. This issue is obscure enough that they may be willing to take a fresh look at birthright citizenship. However, we'd still need one more vote. I can just see Justice Kennedy's words, how he, as the son of Irish immigrants, can't possibly fathom a court that would take away the right of citizenship from everyone who makes it over the river and onto our soil.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“If the child is conceived in Mexico does that make him Mexican by natural origin? “:)

Your concept is beyond excellent and very smart. Conception should be the rule rather where the brat was born. If the mother can’t prove the father is an American citizen, back to country or origin for both of them posthaste.

This is a very interesting concept. If life begins at conception, so should citizenship.

Thank you.

[Cheburashka]

An Australian couple that breaks the law is subject to arrest, punishment, and then deportation, unless they have a diplomatic passport. If their child is born here, the baby will have American citizenship, unless they have diplomatic passports. I have no idea if such a child would be an Australian citizen as well, an expert in Australian citizenship law could tell you.

Back when Hong Kong was in the process of moving from British to Chinese sovereignty there were Hong Kong women coming to the U.S. specifically to give birth here, and then returning to Hong Kong with their new child. Why? So the child would have the option of claiming American citizenship if they would need it someday.

Will any of these children show up on our doorstep and demand to be let in? Probably some, not all. They are American citizens if they want to exercise that right.

This whole thread is about passing laws that will stop this, because the present laws don't stop these situations.

[Carry_Okie]

I cite the law because it provides an indication that the congress believed that such a law was necessary to clarify the point.

No you haven't. In seven years of observing discussions of anchor babies on FR I've never seen such a citation. USC Title, Chapter, Section, and line number, please.

I have not examined your 14th amendment argument, but I do believe that the Congress has the power to deny citizenship to anchor babies under the 15th.

Until you have I won't respond.

[Tennessee Nana]

Very well put...

Great explanation...

[Defiant]

Not worth the time. Sorry. Amateur constitutional scholars make so many silly mistakes that it just wastes all day trying to help them, and I don’t have the time. Good luck with that 14th amendment argument, though, and I hope you prevail on your IRS tax protest, too—the tax code is unconstitutional, too, doncha know.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

Prayers of thanksgiving for the actions of these two men! And prayers for its passage.

[Waryone]

Why would they hold it unconstitutional? The constitution itself in the fourteenth amendment defines a citizen:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If the parents are not subject to the juristiction of the US then their child born here is not a subject (citizen).

The law was written to protect black slaves not create a backdoor for illegals to gain citizenship.

[ZULU]

These people in both parties act as though the Country belongs to them and they are independent arbiters of right and wrong and can rule us as deaf to our wishes as the Bourbons ruled France in the late 1700’s.

They should read up on their history.

[TLI]

You can read the whole thing online.

EL-Link-o?

Thanks!

[No.6]

“Hunter and Tancredo are two of the cosponsors of this bill. Also, look back to 2005 and 2003, where they did the same thing. Good for them!”

Yes, but a measure of their influence would have been if they got these things PASSED in 2003 or 2005. Writing dead bills is good theater but not effective.

[Calpernia]

>>>This is a very interesting concept. If life begins at conception, so should citizenship.

That is a very interesting take on it. That can be incorporated into the Right to Life Act.

[Cyropaedia]

Good job. Howard ( who coauthored the amendment ) specifically said that the Amendment would not cover individuals who were "foreigners, aliens". Illegal immigrants definitely fall into that category.

[Condor51]

Duncan may be going nowhere in his run for POTUS but he's sure making a lot of noise where the country club elites have to listen.

So even if he can't be POTUS, he'd be one a heck of a VEEP. He'd be 'Darth Duncan' and the left would fear him more than Cheney.

[Tennessee Nana]

Thank you Thank you Throw big folding money please...

Here’s the wording of HR 1940

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.

You note that the legal term “alien” is used in congressional documents?

The “lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States” is a REAL immigrant or Registered Alien

The “alien performing active service in the armed forces” is a registered alien with an Alien Registration Card (Green Card) and lawfully in the US as a permanent resident (REAL immigrant)

By excluding the term “alien” from all documents and banning the word as hate speech etc..lo suddenly a different term must be used...

Pedro, Maria what would you like to be called???????

[Ultra Sonic 007]

No. Darth Hunter.

More menacing.

[tumblindice]

“The law was written to protect black slaves not create a backdoor for illegals to gain citizenship.”

Precisely! And that’s clearly shown by the legislative history.
If the Supremes find/found that the legislators meant to grant automatic citizenship to any person born within our boundaries, by mere birth, then they’ve simply found another `penumbral’ right.

In any event, isn’t a SCOTUS that simply rules upon law, and does not make law, what so many of us worked so hard for to see realized?

[flashbunny]

Start here:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11