Posted on 12/01/2007 11:32:43 AM PST by Jim Robinson
BLUFFTON, S.C. (AP) -- Republican White House hopeful Rudy Giuliani said Friday he wouldn't try to change laws that make citizens of children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants, noting that it's a matter determined by the Constitution.
"That's a very delicate balance that's been arrived at, and I wouldn't change that," Giuliani said in response to a question while campaigning at Sun City Hilton Head, a sprawling retirement community down the South Carolina coast from Charleston.
(Excerpt) Read more at breakingnews.nypost.com:80 ...
There’s no way Rudy will be the GOP nominee with the positions he’s taking. He’s too far out on just about every issue that’s important to conservative voters.
I wonder if anyone on this thread considers themselves subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government when they are not in Washington, D.C. or on federally-controlled property?
Just wait until the bigwigs decide that they can “round out the Giuliani ticket” by pushing for Huckabee on the veep slot...
Whatta guy.
Every April 15th (actually every quarter) when I pay my income taxes from W PA, I am reminded that I am subject to the jurisdiction of the federal gov't. How about you?
Fine, thank you rootee for your fine misinterpretation of the amendment. Just because they are citizens does not mean that we are required to keep them and their illegal parents in this country or to provide them with resources. If an american born child of citizen parents is taken to say France to live for 18 years by his/her american parents then the american taxpayer has no obligation to pay for their medical care, education or upkeep when they are living in France. A close acquaintance of mine was born to american parents in France while his father was stationed there in the U.S. military. When he was brought back to the U.S. he held dual U.S. and French citizenship and when he turned 18 he had to choose to take French citizenship or he would lose it. Needless to say he stayed with his primary citizenship.
The same applies to illegals. Deport the parents and send the american born dependent children along with them. As long as they are underage they should be kept with their parents. When the anchors are 18 they can determine their choice of citizenship but not receive any special priviledges in dragging along parents and relatives. Nothing in the constitution says that we are obligated to let the illegal families stay just because the minor children are citizens. If the illegals have been here long enough for the anchors to be 18 then deport them; their anchor child is of age and is on his/her own.
We don’t worry about separating kids from american parents when those parents are sent to jail for crimes so why would we care here.
If you’re running down JR, Hoss, you’re on the fightin’ side of me...and a whole lot of other people.
Also, get your kook-tarded paranoia in check. Just because someone posts an article about a candidate doesn’t mean they like him, especially if it’s Jim Robinson posting about Rudy Giuliani. Sheesh. That’s like accusing Elie Wiesel of liking Hitler just because he wrote a book with Nazis in it.
There should be legislative clarification on this point wrt illegals - the children of illegals should be treated exactly the same as the children of foreign diplomats and the children born to invading soldiers (two current exceptions to jus soli).
Excellent!
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Yeah, and he’s with the court on Roe v Wade too. Doesn’t make it right, or constitutional.
I call the 2nd and 14th ammendments the silent and untested ones. If either had been cited, tested, challenged or debated like the 1st ammendment, there wouldn’t be so much misinterpretation going around.
People like Rudy only make the situation worse. We need defenders of the constitution.
US should adopt European approach; kid citizen of country parents holds passport.
Does this include “anchor babies”? In a worst case scenario could we not exclude such births? This umbillical cord to the rest of the family of illegals coming in?
An illegal alien does not have a “permanent domicil and residence in the United States.” Something about being here “illegally” and subject to deportation forthwith.
Last I checked, the courts have ruled that the unborn children of American women and girls are cancerous tumors to be excised and cured anonymously at any abortuary, but the unborn children of illegal aliens are non-deportable citizens of the United States unless the mother of such unborn children should elect the prior status for them.
But if it was the other way around he could have kept citizenship in both countries.
I am not well versed on Immigration Law, but can someone clarify: if you are born overseas in a United States Military Hospital - are you automatically a United States Citizen? Do you think they will amend that law?/Just Asking - seoul62.........
The 14th amendment is clear and right. Unlike Roe it wasn’t fabricated out of thin air. The USSC clearly determined that American citizenship descends in law from American legal precedents that have their origin in English common law. On whose offspring are automatically determined to be citizens the USSC cites English law:
“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject,..”
This is a good thing too. If birthright citizenship is not the law of the land than your citizenship is contingent on the legality of your parents (and theirs on theirs). I hope you can prove that all your ancestors came here legally, else you are not a citizen (according to your argument).
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.