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 ...
Rudy/McCain/Huckabee all the same on immigration. None of them will do anything to stop it if they manage to get into the White House. It’d be like Jorge all over again.
\
Yes and no, by law any person born to Americans living in another country are citizens of the united states, each foreign country is different, but mostly the baby has until their 18th of 21st birthday to declare if they wish to be a citizen of the country where they were born.
These pseudo-Republican don’t understand these people are crossing over FOR THEIR KIDS!!
If we stop automatic citizenship, we’d decrease the flow by 70-80% I bet.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898. The constituion says what it means its not a “living” document.
“In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
“In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”
Huckabee is the one who didn't use taxpayers' money for his philandering, or to chauffeur a bimbo around, or to walk her dog.
Rudy seems to be unaware of the fact that the Constitution can be amended.
There is another way to fix the problem. Just as they have the 924(c) statute that adds 10 years onto a prison sentence for using a gun while committing a crime, have a similar statute that adds 10 years to a jail sentence for giving birth in the US while here illegally. That would put an end to anchor babies in a hurry. Politicians who find reasons to oppose both solutions will have no excuse to keep their jobs. People will be fed up with the loophole game.
Seduced by his "faith," just like those who were seduced by GWB's in the GOP primary campaign season leading up to '00. Irresponsible spending and soft on border security? No worries, he's a "good Christian."
You don’t even have to do that. How about deporting the illegal alien parents. Citizen children can go home with their parents and come back if you want to (That’s what happens now). If the illegal wants to abandon them here then put the kids up for adoption.
Yes, good post. I suspect, but do not know, that many reading this thread assume “illegal” means they can be charged with a felony. In actual fact, deportation is a civil, not a criminal, matter.
It would take an act of Congress, signed by the President to change this policy.
I was. Born in the FRG. Dad was a U.S. citizen and U.S. soldier, mom a U.S.citizen. State dept keeps my birth certificate as I wasn’t born in a state.
You must be kidding. Rudy supports abortion, opposes marriage, and on and on. The difference between him and Romney are substantial on issues of importance to majority of voters.
He told me that when he turned 18 in 1971 he was told to choose one allegiance or the other because neither of his parents were French.
No thanks.
I’m sure congress could make illegal immigration a felony but IMO that is overkill. What they really need to do is fully fund deportation. Given the big money on the side of ignoring this issue I doubt that will happen.
But if his parents were French and here legally he would be a French and American citizen.
A permanent dual resident alien.
That should be a given and what we should already be doing, but that does nothing to deter anchor baby deliveries. Even the ones that go back with the mother will be voting in our elections in 18 years and taking from the US while giving nothing. How do we tax that US citizen who is living in Mexico like we tax other US citizens working abroad? Will he have to register for selective service? Will he be entitled to disability, social security benefits, and whatnot because he's a citizen?
You have every right to choose him, but if he is nominated you better figure on getting him elected without a huge chunk of conservative Republicans.
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.