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.

[trumandogz]

Times may change, the Constitution does not.

[flashbunny]

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.

[From One - Many]

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.

[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.

Would be awesome if this could be used to overturn the horrible Plyler v. Doe ruling.

[Wolfie]

The Consitution means only what 9 lifetime political appointees say it means.

[flashbunny]

See my post above this. It helps to know what the heck you’re talking about before you act superior on constitutional facts.

[Defiant]

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.

[trumandogz]

Bush will never sign it.

You would have a better shot with Hillary.

[wardaddy]

this would be monumental but the senate will never pass it

[From One - Many]

.... your party affiliation is showing....
you might want to cover up.....

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“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.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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.

[From One - Many]

the senate is subject to the will of the people too.
the senate isn't immune.

[From One - Many]

now everyone (well almost everyone) see the error of the SC’s ways.

[Defiant]

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.

[CindyDawg]

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.

[gidget7]

Wonderful, this needs to pass.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[RockinRight]

ROFL!

You’re gonna git it now!

[From One - Many]

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.