America must stop giving away citizenship like free AOL hours

Rep. Mark Foley [R-FL] ^ | 3/31/03 | Press Release

[Tancredo Fan]

FROM THE OFFICE OF
Representative Mark Foley
Florida, 16th District
Communication Center

NEWS RELEASE | Media Contact: Chris Paulitz (202) 226-4970

FOLEY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CHANGES U.S. CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS

'America must stop giving away citizenship like free AOL hours.'

WASHINGTON, March 31, 2003 --- Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) today re-introduced his amendment to the United States Constitution that would change U.S. citizenship requirements to protect Americans from future acts of terror.

Foley's amendment would allow a person born on American soil automatic citizenship only if at least one parent is a citizen or legal permanent resident at the time of the child's birth. Most other developed countries ­ including the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Germany and Italy ­ have similar positions and do not confer automatic birthright citizenship.

"We are in different times with different threats than when our Constitution was penned," Foley said. "The 14th Amendment was conceived after the Civil War to ensure citizenship to freed slaves ­ not to ensure citizenship to terrorists."

Foley pointed to an example that occurred last year, when Yaser Esam Hamdi was captured with fighters of the former ruling Taliban militia and the al?Qaida terrorist network by American forces in Afghanistan. Hamdi is currently being held as an "enemy combatant" in Norfolk, Virginia, and criminal charges are pending. The problem is that Hamdi's prosecution has been hindered by the fact that he has U.S. citizenship.

Hamdi's parents, who are Saudi Arabian nationals, were working in Louisiana temporarily when Hamdi was born. Several years later, his parents took him back to Saudi Arabia and he never returned to the States. Despite the fact that Hamdi has never held allegiance to our nation ?? and in fact was working with a terrorist organization bent on our destruction ?? he is a U.S. citizen and must be afforded all the rights of one simply because his mother happened to be in the United States when she gave birth.

"America must stop giving away citizenship like free AOL hours," Foley said. "America must protect Americans. It cannot do that as diligently when the threat, more and more, comes from within."

[Tancredo Fan]

END THE ANCHOR BABY SYNDROME ping!!!!!

[San Jacinto]

bttt

[pgyanke]

This is already enshrined in the Constitution. Babies born on our soil are only citizens if their parents are subject to our national authority. Foreign nationals who dash across a border obviously don't fit this category.

We don't need a change to the Constitution, we need some sanity reintroduced into our immigration policies and bureacracies.

[umgud]

Why change anything? Illegals have many of the same rights and sometimes more benefits than citizens (and none of the responsibility).

[pgyanke]

[/sarcasm]?

[Tamar1973]

This is already enshrined in the Constitution. Babies born on our soil are only citizens if their parents are subject to our national authority. Foreign nationals who dash across a border obviously don't fit this category.

Obviously that is not true, otherwise Mr. Hamdi would be in Guantanamo instead of Norfolk, VA. This "anchor baby" thing is more prevalent than you think. Koreans (the ones that can afford the airfare and paying full freight for medical care) come here often to have their babies (especially their sons) so they can have dual citizenship and get out of mandatory military service. But at least most of them go back home.

Mexicans do it so the parents (and grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc.) can stay in the country.

Go. Rep. Foley, GO! Our national security depends on it.

[umgud]

Yup, sorry I forgot the tag. But, I do agree with you that we have an iterpretation and implementation problem.

[jigsaw]

I wonder if Rep. Foley would submit a Bill to allow Americans to instantly renounce their American citizenship at ports of departure?

I'm quite serious.

Simply (1) sign a form giving up citizenship forever and the right to live here, (2) pay all your American taxes owed, (3) surrender your passport, and (4) off you go!

Free at last (at least in your mind.)

You want to visit later. You pay a lot and stay a very short time.

It'd never get passed, but I'm sure many Congressmen would enjoy voting for it.

And what a wonderful Bill for public discussion!

[Billy_bob_bob]

If you surrendered your passport how would you get into another country? You need those papers to get across borders. Perhaps your passport would be exchanged for one from another country?

[pgyanke]

Obviously that is not true...

AMENDMENT XIV of the U.S. Constitution

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The way the Rats and other government trolls have gotten around my interpretation is to say that anyone born in a state is subject to their jurisdiction. Duh. Too easy. Such an interpretation wouldn't need enumeration in the Constitution. This says that foreign nationals, who are not subject to our authority, are not citizens due to birth on our soil.

This amendment was applied with sanity through the earlier 20th Century. If we need any new law on the subject, it should be to rescind insane regulations which have thrown open our borders.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The prevailing judicial interpretation of this sentence is that everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen unless they are the children of foreign diplomats, since diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. (they have diplomatic immunity). So, unless a court rules otherwise, Foley's law is necessary to keep children of illegal aliens or tourists from becoming U.S. citizens just because they happen to be born here. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment authorizes Congress to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment "by appropriate legislation," and I think it is clearly appropriate to clarify that Section 1 should not be misconstrued to grant U.S. citizenship to babies whose parents aren't citizens or at least permanent residents.

[Joe Boucher]

He is my congress critter. Voted for him each time he has run. Cares about veterans and the military. Hope graham runs and gets his ass beat for president. Foley is thinking of running for Florida Senator. Hope he wins. I'll vote for him.

[pgyanke]

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment authorizes Congress to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment "by appropriate legislation," and I think it is clearly appropriate to clarify that Section 1 should not be misconstrued to grant U.S. citizenship to babies whose parents aren't citizens or at least permanent residents.

See? We can agree. The article says that Cong. Foley wants to introduce a Constitutional Amendment. I'm saying this isn't necessary. A law from Congress with a more rational interpretation is a welcome way to proceed.

[janetgreen]

California is host to millions of anchor babies, and California taxpayers get the privilege of building new schools for them and bailing out bankrupt hospitals so they can continue treating them.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"The article says that Cong. Foley wants to introduce a Constitutional Amendment."

---

Sorry, I must have read right past that and assumed Foley was introducing a bill. I think we do agree then. If Congress passes a law pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, and the Supreme Court strikes it down, then and only then would a constitutional amendment be necessary to keep children of illegal aliens from being U.S. citizens at birth.

[AuH2ORepublican]

The "anchor baby" problem describes not the fact that a baby born in the U.S. is a citizen at birth regardless of whether his parents are illegal aliens, but that the parents of a U.S. citizen are allowed to move to the U.S. This is a separate problem that would not be solved with a correct interpretation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. If an American woman has a baby in the U.S., clearly the child should (and, pursuant to the text of the 14th Amendment, must) be a U.S. citizen at birth. But if the baby's father is a foreigner who is not a legal resident of the U.S., and he is not married to the baby's mother, why should he be allowed to emigrate to the U.S.? The "anchor baby" problem lies not in the misconstruction of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, but in the federal laws that grant parents of U.S. citizens the right to live in the U.S. regardless of their own immigration status. Those laws should be repealed as well.

[janetgreen]

You're absolutely right. Getting the politicians to agree is a big problem. They're bound and determined to change this country forever, to my disgust.

[EdReform]

Bump!

[MissAmericanPie]

Go Foley!