Skip to comments.
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 (Hunter and Tancredo: Cosponsors to End Illegal Anchor Babies)
Library of Congress ^
Posted on 06/22/2007 9:18:19 AM PDT by 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.
TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; anchorbabies; anchorbaby; duncanhunter; illegals; immigrantlist; noamnestyforillegals; tancredo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-211 next last
To: From One - Many
Times may change, the Constitution does not.
To: Lurking Libertarian
No, they are not. This was clearly outlined in the introduction and debate on the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment.
You can read the whole thing online. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant citizens- basically those who had sworn a loyalty oath to the US.
42
posted on
06/22/2007 9:50:09 AM PDT
by
flashbunny
(<--- Free Anti-Rino graphics! See Rudy the Rino get exposed as a liberal with his own words!)
To: trumandogz
but the facts are this has a great shot....
if the people get behind the legislation
Why are you against this legislation?
and the times, they are a changing.
43
posted on
06/22/2007 9:50:22 AM PDT
by
From One - Many
(Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk)
To: Ultra Sonic 007
Interesting. If it were to pass, it would surely be challenged and could go to the Supreme Court. How they would rule is anybody's guess.
Would be awesome if this could be used to overturn the horrible Plyler v. Doe ruling.
To: trumandogz
The Consitution means only what 9 lifetime political appointees say it means.
45
posted on
06/22/2007 9:50:30 AM PDT
by
Wolfie
To: trumandogz
See my post above this. It helps to know what the heck you’re talking about before you act superior on constitutional facts.
46
posted on
06/22/2007 9:51:38 AM PDT
by
flashbunny
(<--- Free Anti-Rino graphics! See Rudy the Rino get exposed as a liberal with his own words!)
To: trumandogz
Trumandogz, it is not certain that the Constitution mandates automatic citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. That's why Congress passed a law, I believe in the 20's, that give citizenship to anyone born in the US. The language in the constitution is that someone born in the US and "subject to its laws" is a citizen. Thus, the children of diplomats are not citizens. Neither were the children of Indians, unless their tribe had submitted to US law.
Illegal aliens are subjects of Mexico who are unlawfully in the US. They have not submitted to the process of applying for entry, having permission and thus becoming "subject to our laws." I think the Congress has the absolute right to deny the children of trespassers the right to part ownership of the territory in which they have trespassed. If you disagree, well, it is a debatable question, but it is not open and shut as you imply. I think we've got 4 votes on the SC that would support this bill, and we are close to a majority.
47
posted on
06/22/2007 9:51:54 AM PDT
by
Defiant
(W '04...........Cheney '07, Thompson/Hunter '08.)
To: From One - Many
Bush will never sign it.
You would have a better shot with Hillary.
To: Ultra Sonic 007
this would be monumental but the senate will never pass it
49
posted on
06/22/2007 9:52:58 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
(on supervised release...btw....I know Trent Lott and he sucks......)
To: trumandogz
.... your party affiliation is showing....
you might want to cover up.....
50
posted on
06/22/2007 9:53:58 AM PDT
by
From One - Many
(Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk)
To: trumandogz
“Oh yes that pesky Constitution and Supreme Court!”
The Constitution is only a piece of pesky paper according to Bush.
Off with their heads! Let them eat cake!
Load and lock.
To: CounterCounterCulture
Interesting. If it were to pass, it would surely be challenged and could go to the Supreme Court. How they would rule is anybody's guess. They ruled on this in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in 1898.
To: wardaddy
the senate is subject to the will of the people too.
the senate isn't immune.
53
posted on
06/22/2007 9:55:09 AM PDT
by
From One - Many
(Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk)
To: Lurking Libertarian
now everyone (well almost everyone) see the error of the SC’s ways.
54
posted on
06/22/2007 9:56:19 AM PDT
by
From One - Many
(Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk)
To: GatĂșn(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
It could not be retroactive. There is no question that current law makes illegal alien babies citizen. You can't take citizenship from someone who is born with it, who did not, for example, lie when applying for it. That would be an ex post facto law, and a law that takes away existing rights without due process. It would take a Constitutional amendment to do that, and you could never get an amendment passed that stripped a bunch of children of their citizenship.
Now, what you could do is pass a law that says we don't give a crap about the parents of anchor babies, they have to be shipped back. When they go back, they will then take their anchors with them. Right now, they sometimes let parents stay because their kids are citizens.
55
posted on
06/22/2007 9:57:37 AM PDT
by
Defiant
(W '04...........Cheney '07, Thompson/Hunter '08.)
To: Ultra Sonic 007
I’ve got mixed feelings on this. The abuse has to stop and we can do that by enforcing our borders. That said, maybe we should stay with anyone born in the US is a citizen.
To: Ultra Sonic 007
Wonderful, this needs to pass.
57
posted on
06/22/2007 9:58:23 AM PDT
by
gidget7
( Vote for the Arsenal of Democracy, because America RUNS on Duncan!)
To: Ultra Sonic 007
58
posted on
06/22/2007 9:59:05 AM PDT
by
Guenevere
(Duncan Hunter for President, 2008!!)
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
ROFL!
You’re gonna git it now!
59
posted on
06/22/2007 9:59:12 AM PDT
by
RockinRight
(Our 44th President will be Fred Dalton Thompson!)
To: Defiant
It could not be retroactive Australia is removing citizenships from mooselimbs
Removal could take place here also, if the people wanted it....and fought for it.
60
posted on
06/22/2007 9:59:42 AM PDT
by
From One - Many
(Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-211 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