Posted on 11/04/2005 5:54:41 AM PST by .cnI redruM
House Republicans are looking closely at ending birthright citizenship and building a barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border as they search for solutions to illegal immigration.
A task force of party leaders and members active on immigration has met since the summer to try to figure out where consensus exists, and several participants said those two ideas have floated to the top of the list of possibilities to be included either in an immigration-enforcement bill later this year or in a later comprehensive immigration overhaul.
"There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are the children of folks who come into this country illegally," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, who is participating in the "unity dinners," the group of Republicans trying to find consensus on immigration.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
No problem. It's not commonly understood because the usage of language has changed to the point that it is now quaint to speak of foreign "subjects."
Well actually there is a federal law against "aiding and abetting" which means that all those localities are breaking the law.
Enforce the darn laws!
Creating situations for our government to arbitrate our right to citizenship is very dangerous. Any granting of such powers enables the government to further expand upon them, and deny the basic rights of citizenship. It is a pandoras box that must remain closed.
It was opened when the 14th was ratified, under the presumption that government has the right to define citizenship. Given the mess the courts made of it over the last seventy years, fixing the mess is our task, however hazardous it might be. The status quo cannot stand.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
When families of diplomats living in the US have children here are those children automatically US citizens too?
I do not trust the socialist government underwhich we now live to arbitrate such things. Nor should you.
The government can already take your land away if it looks actractive for commerce. Allowing them to take away citizenship means they can take everything you have, and deport you regardless of your parentry, residence, or birthplace.
Don't they understand that they will have to amend the Constitution to do that? You can't just write unconstitutional laws and pretend that you amended it.
What will they do? It's 4th and long...
-they will punt.
The headline is a lie; they don't seek to end birthright citizenship. They merely intend to restrict it to those it was intended for - the children of citizens and legal resident non-citizens.
Of course, if we keep illegals out, we won't have to amend the constitution.
I'm sure the Founding Fathers assumed we would secure our borders.
If I rob a bank and then use that money to do a legal transaction to buy a car, I don't get to keep the car.
One cannot keep the fruits of their crime.
No Constitutional meddling needed.
One of the great things about America is that we grant citizenship to those born here. I would hope that still means something.
Are you comparing a firearm to a child?
No. But you entered Canada legally and by doing so implicitly agreed and gave your consent to be subject to their laws while you are in their country. (But, if you were to have a baby I don't believe Canada would automatically give it citizenship; most countries don't.)
An illegal alien enters our country illegally and by doing so explicitly chooses to live outside the jurisdiction of our laws. Usually after they get here they continue to flout the authority of our laws by committing a whole series of additional crimes like identity theft, identity fraud, and tax evasion. They clearly do not consider themselves subject to our jurisdiction. That does not mean that we can't impose our laws on the illegal but they certainly have not given any consent to be governed by them. They are not subject to our jurisdiction in one sense of the word (have chosen not to be) but are in another sense of the word (we can impose them).
The World Court believes it has jurisdiction over American citizens for certain actions which they deem criminal. I don't remember us consenting to their jurisdiction over US citizens or our territory and I reject it and refute their claim of jurisdiction. I would expect my government to resist their claim of jurisdiction and even use force to assert our sovereignty from their jurisdiction. But they nevertheless continue to assert jurisdiction over us and might even impose their jurisdiction on one of us if they were to be foolish enough to travel to France or Brussels.
We have even occasionally imposed our laws on people who are not citizens, who have never entered and/or committed a crime within our territorial jurisdiction such as Manuel Noriega of Panama. We actually militarily invaded a sovereign nation to arrest him. He was apparently subject to our jurisdiction because we tried and I believe convicted him in US Courts. Is everybody in Panama subject to our jurisdiction?
My point is that the word jurisdiction is fuzzy and leaves lots of room for interpretation and definition. I want the Congress to define it to exclude anchor babies. The Constitution gives Congress sole authority over immigration policy so it is their right to define jurisdiction for the purposes of citizenship as they choose and the courts should defer and it would be appropriate for Congress to demand that they defer by limiting their jurisdiction which is also within their Constitutional authority.
anchor babies WERE ended.
This is why the "dream act" was cobbled together. It was a failed attempt to bring back the anchor babies.
What happened is they now use undo or medical hardship (the child isADHD or some nonsense) in order to keep here. The lawyers have made out fine.
It is not enough to eliminate the anchor baby, YOU MUST ELIMINATE THE WORK AROUNDS DEVELOPED BY LAWYERS TO BYPASS the previous elimination.
No, I'm pointing out that being a criminal causes one to lose certain rights, and that one cannot keep the booty gained from illegal activity.
But the child is really the one who is getting the right, not his or her parent. What crime did the child commit?
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.