Posted on 04/24/2013 6:53:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Not a single word in the 844-page "Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act" introduced by Senator Marco Rubio and the "Gang of Eight" addresses the controversial practice of "birthright citizenship."
Birthright citizenship is the common description given to the automatic grant of U.S. citizenship to babies born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. Many experts agree with the verdict of law professor Lino Graglia -- that the practice generates "perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."
The failure of Congress to confront the subject is nothing new. The "four pillars" of the reform framework floated by Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham back in 2010 also avoided mention of the gaping "hole in the fence" created by the "magnet" of the birthright practice.
While Rubio touted the newest bipartisan proposal and appeared to "backtrack" on the border fence as illegals continue to climb over it, our government creates even more incentives for illegals to have children here. Besides potential ObamaCare benefits, many provisions in the Gang's new package increase the allure and impact of the birthright magnet.
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter penned a scathing analysis titled "If Rubio's Amnesty is So Great, Why is He Lying?" Near the end of her litany of damning facts and figures, Coulter wrote: "The children of illegal aliens become automatic citizens under our current insane interpretation of the 14th Amendment."
The insanity, however, goes beyond the "illegal" argument. Coulter noted statistics and dollars relating to the children of illegals; however, she didn't mention that the practice also awards citizenship to the babies of virtually anyone legally but temporarily present, including "birth tourists."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The article also touches on “natural born” citizenship and Rubio’s eligibility, near the end.
“addresses the controversial practice of “birthright citizenship”
Controversial how? Everyone born in America is a citizen since the 14th Amendment.
If your goal is to strip citizenship from Americans based on their lack of a pedigree - that’s something that’s going to cut both ways.
What’s to stop Obama from stripping citizenship from others?
It’s not mentioned because the two people writing this monstrosity LIKE the bastardization of the 14th amendment...and YOU?? Well, you’re just another ‘bitter ender’ racist if you don’t!
CESAR CONDA: “Birthright Citizenship and Abortion”
By Cesar Conda (Rubio’s chief of staff)
August 4, 2010
As a pro-immigration conservative (yes, I know, we could fit in a phone booth), I am opposed to Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R., S.C.) proposal to end birthright citizenship for babies who, through no fault of their own, are born in this country to illegal immigrants. Innocent children shouldn’t be held responsible for the sins of their parents.
In terms of why not amend the Constitution: The Fourteenth Amendment rejected the idea that someone could be a person but less than a person legally, as well as the idea that citizenship can be made dependent on race. It is of enormous symbolic importance. There is no data supporting the claim that significant numbers of women deliberately cross the border to give birth in the United States in order to take advantage of this provision.[AuntB: OMG, what a LIAR!]
Further, the Republican party would be committing political suicide if it were to endorse ending birthright citizenship, as it would cost the party Latino votes, which are crucial in Florida and in several Western states.[snip]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3007546/posts?page=56#53
GROVER NORQUIST:
Norquist Says Ending Birthright Citizenship Is a Tax
Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, who is most famous at the moment for waging a political war on government spending, said on Monday that ending automatic citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil would be a tax on having babies.
“This is a tax on every child being born,” he said during a telephone conference call hosted by the public-policy group National Foundation for American Policy. “It solves no problems and instead creates all sorts of problems and costs in terms of Americans.......“It’s frustrating, and it’s why people lash out and reach out for these non-solutions” like ending birthright citizenship, he said.[snip]
BOTH of them are wrong, but they never cared about the law.
“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Senator Jacob Howard,
co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
“Controversial how? Everyone born in America is a citizen since the 14th Amendment.
If your goal is to strip citizenship from Americans based on their lack of a pedigree - that’s something that’s going to cut both ways.
What’s to stop Obama from stripping citizenship from others?”
Good Grief! Are you Grover Norquist...your thinking is just as suspect!
ONE MORE TIME!
“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Senator Jacob Howard,
co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
844 pages to say “Let them all stay and bring their relatives too.”
If you really want to know how disingenuous this whole thing is why is the Senate not also including the 4.5 million folks who are legally standing in line to get citizenship? Not a peep about those people.
Jackpot baby/14th amendment ping!
“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Senator Jacob Howard,
co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
Are you claiming these children are children of ambassadors?
No?
Then I guess it would be unwise to strip them of their citizenship - which is based on the same exact thing as your own citizenship is based - being born in America.
Or are we now making it a requirement that there are additional hoops that need to be jumped for some people and not others? That violates equal protection.
In any case, I only hope you can see how your position serves Obama very well. If birth doesn’t make you a citizen - then the state can strip it from those it does not like, and award it to others who have no connection to America whatsoever.
I bet that would be something Obama would like very much indeed. So, go on - attack the very basis of your own citizenship and pile high the requirements. Just don’t be surprised when you find yourself *outside* the box.
You’re a troll. SHUT UP, I don’t read your garbage. You lie about what posters post. YOU ARE A TROLL!
Calling me a troll won’t change the point that empowering the state to have a more ‘nuanced’ definition of citizenship isn’t going to end well.
Are you claiming that a nation has a claim on children despite the loyalties of their parents? "Birthright citizenship" is functionally equivalent to a press gang in that it places obligations on people who might just be tourists having no intention of such.
Then I guess it would be unwise to strip them of their citizenship - which is based on the same exact thing as your own citizenship is based - being born in America.
That is false. She and I were born as children of American citizens. That's what makes us legitimate American citizens.
Or are we now making it a requirement that there are additional hoops that need to be jumped for some people and not others? That violates equal protection.
The Fourteenth Amendment instituted those "hoops" in the first place. Its current interpretation (your prefrence) is a legal fiction drawn by progressives with every intention of diluting the culture and serving the interests of the outrageously wealthy. Given that the children of aliens are not legally citizens (despite what the current administrative policy says), the equal protection clause very clearly does not apply to aliens, as it applies its privileges and immunities to the preceding citizenship clause.
In any case, I only hope you can see how your position serves Obama very well. If birth doesn’t make you a citizen - then the state can strip it from those it does not like, and award it to others who have no connection to America whatsoever.
This is a completely specious argument. Birth doesn't make one an American citizen, hell, there are people born all over the world that are not American citizens. There are also people born all over the world that are American citizens. The difference with the latter is the citizenship of their parents, just as it is within the borders of the United States.
I was reading the exchange up to this point.
Funhy, back when I respect Rand Paul he was ‘interested’ in taking another look at the 14th Amendment in creating anchor babies. Well, we are well passed that now.
“Are you claiming that a nation has a claim on children despite the loyalties of their parents? “Birthright citizenship” is functionally equivalent to a press gang in that it places obligations on people who might just be tourists having no intention of such.”
I would argue that it’s no such thing - but is a safeguard for the child and the rights of the child as opposed to their parents.
“That is false. She and I were born as children of American citizens. That’s what makes us legitimate American citizens.”
That’s not what the Fourteenth says. This opinion is explicitly rejected.
“The Fourteenth Amendment instituted those “hoops” in the first place.”
And it explicitly rejects this one. Hence my point. You are in violation of the equal protection clause already by trying to deprive some American citizens of their citizenship. We already have enough problems with Obama running roughshod over the constitution, let alone Conservatives.
“Birth doesn’t make one an American citizen”
Yes, it does. I know you have trouble following the plain and clear words of the constitution.
“There are also people born all over the world that are American citizens.”
So your argument is that because X is sometimes not Y, that proves that Y cannot be X?
No, that is what the Fourteenth says.
This opinion is explicitly rejected.
By a crooked progressivist court. Read the minority opinion cited in the article you didn't read.
And it explicitly rejects this one.
No, it doesn't. The court did.
Yes, it does. I know you have trouble following the plain and clear words of the constitution.
You can't read because you don't know the difference in the law at that time between "subject to the jurisdiction" and being within a jurisdiction.
Today liberals/illegals were whining and moaning on fb because they think the restriction about border being secure using interdiction numbers is unfair...according to them the Border Patrol can dink with those numbers and does all the time for political reasons so that number has no meaning. Those of us that want the border to be secured have been saying that for how long? Now it seems it is obvious to everyone. Supporters of amnesty say interdiction numbers and past interdiction numbers are “meaningless” imagine that.
Good one, except should say “conservative” instead of GOP. I am not so sure the GOP doesn’t support amnesty...
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.