Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-211 next last
To: RightWhale
If they would just secure the borders we wouldn’t have this problem and be concerned about the senate, president or supreme court. It all goes back to, that if we enforce the laws we have now we would take care of a lot of other concerns, automatically.
81 posted on 06/22/2007 10:09:52 AM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

Okay sure, and you really believe that Bush would sign this?


82 posted on 06/22/2007 10:10:04 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Wrong. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco of Chinese-American residents lawfully residing in San Francisco at the time of his birth. That, my friend, is a glaring distinction that makes your citation what lawyers would call "inapt".

Don't try this at home, you'll only embarass yourself.

The bill proposed by Hunter says in its very language (did you read it?) that the children of lawful residents of the US are citizens.

83 posted on 06/22/2007 10:10:24 AM PDT by Defiant (W '04...........Cheney '07, Thompson/Hunter '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Pessimist/Defeatist much?

Why even wake up in the morning with an attitude like that, which I will not even give credence to by posting in this post.

As the truck said in the movie Cars, "Get 'er done!"

84 posted on 06/22/2007 10:10:35 AM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

I still don’t think that would stop the SCOTUS from declaring it unconstitutional.


85 posted on 06/22/2007 10:11:09 AM PDT by RockinRight (Our 44th President will be Fred Dalton Thompson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

Hunter is so good at everything and yet we have FREEPERS who want Fred Thompson. What a sad situation FREEPERS have gotten themselves into. If FREEPERS can’t tell who the most conservative and experienced person who should be President than it is a sad day for America and we may not recover. Fred will damage America as President Bush has done. Hunter will make America Proud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


86 posted on 06/22/2007 10:11:30 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Even if it passes, the Supreme Court would certainly hold it unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

Then we amend the Constitution.

What, we’re going to give up instead?

87 posted on 06/22/2007 10:11:59 AM PDT by Cheburashka (DUmmieland = Opus Dopium. In all senses of the word dope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
The biggest change happens by focusing on doing the footwork, not obsessing over what one assumes about the results.

True change is about action, not mental masturbation.

88 posted on 06/22/2007 10:12:50 AM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: From One - Many
Removal could take place here also, if the people wanted it....and fought for it.

Not without a constitutional amendment or a military suspension of the constitution it couldn't. I would be fine with the former, but it would never pass. I would not wish to see the latter, except in time of war, with a large population of the enemy in our midst.

89 posted on 06/22/2007 10:12:54 AM PDT by Defiant (W '04...........Cheney '07, Thompson/Hunter '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

What about in terms of pork-barrel spending? ROFL

Who cares! Once Hunter fixes the country, we will have plenty of money left over that a couple pork spending won’t even make a difference. Trust me once President Hunter makes America right again, the country will be thriving and money will be available for additional necessary pork items. People will not complain.


90 posted on 06/22/2007 10:14:25 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GOP Poet

I am not defeatist, I simply understand what is possible and what is not. This legislation will not pass and will not be signed by the current President.

Just build the damn wall so high that pregnant women will not be able to climb it.

Problem solved.


91 posted on 06/22/2007 10:15:27 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

Comment #92 Removed by Moderator

To: Ultra Sonic 007

Wow this is Great!!!


93 posted on 06/22/2007 10:16:12 AM PDT by CPT Clay (Drill ANWR, Personal Accounts NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

Depends on the justices hearing the case. The supreme court has reversed itself before.

The real problem with anchor babies has always been due to incorrect readings of the 14th amendment. A law that clarifies it would be a good thing.


94 posted on 06/22/2007 10:16:22 AM PDT by flashbunny (<--- Free Anti-Rino graphics! See Rudy the Rino get exposed as a liberal with his own words!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
I just emailed Herseth-Sandin of SD to ask her to sign on to it.

We shall see, but I won’t hold my breath.

95 posted on 06/22/2007 10:16:33 AM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
you might want to really take a good look at who is inside this nation

except in time of war, with a large population of the enemy in our midst.

I see the enemy in our backyard everyday. The status quo isn't so status quo any-mo'. MHO

96 posted on 06/22/2007 10:16:43 AM PDT by From One - Many (Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

That would indeed be the best combination for America.

But the power elites in the Republican Party are blocking them. The money machers in the Republican Party are opposed to Hunter’s illegal alien policies and resent his statements about foreign trade to the effect that it should benefit America. Ditto to Tancredo. But they would have my vote, support and money.


97 posted on 06/22/2007 10:17:07 AM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
First of all, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 will not pass...Second, even if it does pass, President Bush will VETO.....Suppose it does pass and Bush signs it, it will be overturned by the Courts.

True, true, and false.

What supporters of this measure need to do is put it out there, and lay the groundwork for a conservative congress that we hope to achieve by 2010 or 2012 that might be able to pass such a measure. If we fail, it will not mean the end of the republic, it will mean that the several million anchor babies have to be absorbed. However, if we let the President's vision of immigration succeed, then we do endanger the republic, for there will be 12 million, then 20 then 50 million non-Americans here, unassimilated, and with values that are antithetical to democratic rule.

You're not helping in our important task with your inane comments, most of which are incorrect.

98 posted on 06/22/2007 10:18:05 AM PDT by Defiant (W '04...........Cheney '07, Thompson/Hunter '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Doesn’t matter whether he’d sign it. He’s a lost cause anyway.

The best thing is to get this issue out there and up for discussion in the 2008 race. Get a conservative candidate that can ride public sentiment on this law into office, and there will be a mandate for passage.


99 posted on 06/22/2007 10:18:27 AM PDT by flashbunny (<--- Free Anti-Rino graphics! See Rudy the Rino get exposed as a liberal with his own words!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
This is the only new immigration legislation that's needed. If our executive branch would just enforce the existing legislation--including building the fence--then this bill would complete the package.
100 posted on 06/22/2007 10:19:03 AM PDT by TChris (The Republican Party is merely the Democrat Party's "away" jersey - Vox Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson