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

From the report linked above:
End birthright citizenship. This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration. By a 2:1 margin, voters say it’s the wrong policy, including Harry Reid who said “no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

That is pretty nebulous to me. Does he mean that he would support simply repealing the 14th Amendment? That he would try to pass some legislation that would pass SCOTUS muster (maybe with a "not subject to judicial review" clause) that prohibited citizenship to children of illegal aliens? Or what?

I don't know if I want the government to be able to grant citizenship or decide who is worthy. If Øbama had that kind of power, none of us would have been allowed to retain our citizenship (since, according to the DHS, Right Wing Extremists (like religious folks, like pro-lifers, like pro-small government people) are the greatest threat to the country. Just as I'm sure that none of the legislators who voted in favor of the 14th Amendment could have ever dreamed, in their worst nightmares, that it would be used to justify anchor babies, I look at the other side of the coin.

If he means a careful re-wording of the 14th Amendment to eliminate anchor babies, that's fine. Otherwise...

1 posted on 08/16/2015 10:35:33 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: markomalley

2 posted on 08/16/2015 10:39:47 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

The current interpretation giving citizenship to children of illegals and tourists is bogus. It isn’t supported by the 14th Amendment at all. It was something made up by bureaucrats and judges in the past 50 years or so.

Sen. Vitter has legislation to end “birthright” citizenship for children born to people who are under the jurisdiction of another country. (Rand Paul supported that legislation in 2011 but hasn’t said anything about it since then; another reason he’s losing voters to Trump.)


3 posted on 08/16/2015 10:42:47 AM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
Your language is as if the situation has no, and never had .. legitimate failsafes built in, which I'm pretty sure the language, though not stating if/then, DID state THAT if.

Clever rebelious black robes and barister saboteurs did, and continue, to rip our fabric to shreds

The answer is to just determine ... "No, is doesn't mean isn't and I don't give a shit WHAT you say"

4 posted on 08/16/2015 10:43:53 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

“gilded private plane” and “gilded helicopter” multiple references lately.


5 posted on 08/16/2015 10:46:24 AM PDT by GoneSalt (+NooB+"I STAND WITH DONALD TRUMP-HE'S TERRIFIC-HE'S BRASH-HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH"~TED CRUZ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

“Birthright citizenship” has never been enshrined in law.

It was taken from an opinion of a Supreme Court judge in the 1980s.

There are lots of people who are born in the US who are not citizens - the children of ambassadors for example.


6 posted on 08/16/2015 10:47:16 AM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

I think we are the only country left that allows birthright citizenship ie anchor babies and we need to get rid of it.


9 posted on 08/16/2015 10:49:42 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

Birthright citizenship, anchor babies, and chain migration are what has destroyed California. I may have to vote for him twice.


10 posted on 08/16/2015 10:51:35 AM PDT by Pelham (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

I suppose congress could pass a bill that defines
what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means.
-
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
-
“...children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance,
not merely those born within its limits, were to be citizens of the United States...”


11 posted on 08/16/2015 10:52:00 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (I was conceived in liberty, how about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

I wish some candidate would say that he would just blanket undo all of The Won’s EO’s just on the basis that anything O did was probably bad, then that they would be reviewed one by one and if anything worthwhile was found, it would be reinstated. That way the message is clear that the default is to just ASSUME that anything Obama did is invalid until proven otherwise.


17 posted on 08/16/2015 11:22:43 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!Just read)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

No more anchor babies!


24 posted on 08/16/2015 11:57:25 AM PDT by BigCinBigD (...Was that okay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

Yea.. Just do it by Executive Order. This birth right is ridiculous.


26 posted on 08/16/2015 12:23:53 PM PDT by Hattie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tennessee Nana

ping


50 posted on 08/16/2015 9:17:21 PM PDT by Pelham (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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