And take your anchor babies with you!
Posted on 09/29/2007 6:12:59 AM PDT by Josh Painter
When Fred Thompson said it might be time to review the practice of granting citizenship to every child born on American soil, he didn't acknowledge the seismic shift such an idea represents.
Citizenship by birth has been prescribed by the Constitution since 1868 -- and upheld for 109 years by the Supreme Court -- but the Republican presidential candidate made it sound anachronistic.
"I think that law was created at another time and place for valid reasons," the former U.S. senator from Tennessee said earlier this month. "It probably needs to be revisited."
Thompson's comments have angered Hispanic leaders -- many of them Republicans -- who say they are a crass attempt to court the GOP base.
With conservative voters demanding an end to illegal immigration, Republican candidates have been talking tough on that issue for months. In July, an adviser to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the Romney campaign was researching the birthright-citizenship issue.
"It's not just ramping up the rhetoric," said Alex Villalobos, a Republican state senator from Miami. "It's pandering to extremists."
State Rep. David Rivera, R-Miami, while not criticizing any candidate directly, called the idea a "xenophobic" notion that could drive Hispanic voters from the GOP.
"At best, this would be seen as mean-spirited," he said. "At worst, it's seen as bigotry."
Thompson made the comments in Cape Coral as he barnstormed through Florida two weeks ago.
He was blasting so-called "chain migration" -- the legal immigration preference that enables naturalized or birthright citizens to bring their non-American family members here -- when he was asked about children born here to illegal immigrants.
Thompson said he was less concerned about them, but that the issue of automatic citizenship should be reviewed.
"It probably needs to be revisited," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
The point about illegal aliens is that everybody sees them everyday. And everybody sees nothing is being done about it by who we elected. And who we elected lords over us about "jobs AMERICANS won't do". That is the direct insult that shut down the capitol switchboard a few months ago.
The question to ask of our elected lords is what country or entities they pay allegiance to.
Well Boo...Frickin...Hoo. Tell your fellow Hispanics to stop coming over the border right as the baby is popping out to suck out the money from our welfare system and we might change our minds.
On second thought, no we won’t.
When are we going to stop taking in immigrants that must be endured? I refer to legal and illegal immigrants who are useless and we just endure them. They gobble up tax dollars and we get less from them then they get from us.
My answer is we do this due to white guilt and worry about being called racist. We allow two bit punk 3rd worlders set our immigration agenda. Them along with odious white liberals want to invite the whole world to come here. No Europeans of course. Just 3rd worlders with no educations and no English language. It’s so damn stupid. At the same time it would be great to have laws that make it easier for native Americans to up our birthrates and keep families together. I would exclude immigrants from any incentives to have more children. You have to be here a couple generations
And take your anchor babies with you!
And this will continue as long as the Quisling ‘rats see them as future welfare state ‘rat voters.
We should treat them no different that other exotic seeds that happen to fall on our soil and take root.
Millions of Italians migrated to this country. I do not recall them demanding any of these same perks that Hispanic organizations do.
Even if this reporter knew the plain language they still wouldn't change a syllable of what they wrote.
It goes to prove the old adage, "If the premise is wrong then the solution most assuredly will be also."
Both parties are hypnotized by the prospect of new Hispanic voters. Just wait ‘till the anchor babies hit. They can vote. That’s when we’ll really find out how stupid our immigration policies have been. The anchor babies voting will come in like a stealth bomber
“State Rep. David Rivera, R-Miami, while not criticizing any candidate directly, called the idea a “xenophobic” notion that could drive Hispanic voters from the GOP.
“At best, this would be seen as mean-spirited,” he said. “At worst, it’s seen as bigotry.”
I growing sick and tired of these people. I am english and irish ancestry, and I want english or irish illegals deported immediately. The only racism I see is from hispanics!!
Right. Ron Paul was the first and only person to come up with this idea. All others since then have stolen it from him.
Geesh.
Well stated as usual!
” Children of diplomats, etc, do not become citizens. Why should the children of those here ILLEGALLY become citizens?”
BINGO!
EXACTLY!
“NEVER, EVER was it intended to cover people who were here ILLEGALLY, for the sole intent of gaining citizenship (also government welfare, health care, free educations and many other things.)”
Thank you.
1868 + 109 = 1977
I must be Rip Van auboy - it's 1977. Or, maybe it's poor reporting, again.
Yes. An amendment. One of 27.
The problem is that it has not been interpreted by the courts the way the enactors intended. It was NEVER intended to give Citizenship to the children of foreigners, whether here legally or not.
The language is clear and direct. The primary goal was to make it perfectly clear that former slaves and their children were US citizens. But the men who wrote that amendment weren't stupid, and they weren't unaware that there were foreigners who might give birth in this country. Call off the seance to try to determine intent -- they wrote what they wrote.
Determining intent is a useful tool when there's ambiguous language. The only ambiguity that's relevant here is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." I believe it's pretty clear that phrase was intended to exclude Indians on reservations, who at the time were not US citizens but are now. But at least there's some room for debate on that phrase.
In my reading, I can only think of one group of people who are covered by "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- folks covered by diplomatic immunity. Maybe passengers on a foreign-flagged airliner, on a flight that does not take off or land in the US, who give birth in flight in US airspace.
If there's something relevant the authors of the 14th didn't know, which I don't think there was, then the solution is to again amend the Constitution.
And, the question of whether children of ILLEGAL aliens are citizens has never been taken to the Supreme Court, let alone ruled on.
That' because there's not much of a case to be made, I think the District courts would pretty much all rule the same way and the higher courts would be hard-pressed to find grounds to review the case.
An act of congress could seek to clarify the citizenship-at-birth portion of the 14th, and the courts might uphold it, but I doubt it. No court is likely to, or indeed should, strip any born US citizen of citizenship on its own initiative. Some naturalized citizens have been stripped -- usually Nazi war criminals on the grounds that they lied on their application, were never eligible, and their naturalization is therefore invalid -- but even that is rare.
I don't want judges running around turning citizens into non-citizens. That is just about the most incredibly dangerous legal precedent I can imagine.
“Thompson angers state Hispanics”
No indication that it angered these Hispanics:
You Don’t Speak for Me!
“Formed when Col. Al Rodriguez became fed up watching media coverage of the mass protests of April. ‘Their leaders were saying it was a march for immigrant rights and a Latino/Hispanic movement,’ says Rodriguez. ‘I thought to myself, ‘Hey, those are illegal aliens, not immigrants!’
Col. Rodriguez began speaking out to others saying, ‘I’m of Hispanic ancestry and those people are acting like they speak for me. Well, you don’t speak for me!’”
Do hispanics vote mostly Republican?
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.