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 ...
Or Congress could limit the courts ability to review their definition of jurisdiction as described in Post 162. This would be perfect appropriate because the Constitution gives Congress (and not the Supreme Court) the sole right to establish immigration policy.
If Congress does this and we don't like the results, we can always elect new people to Congress who will change the law. This is far preferable to the situation we have now where the law is being written by the unelected and very difficult to change Supreme Court.
Congress doesn't have the power to pass laws that violate the Constitution. If it does so, and attempts to prevent judicial review by asserting that the courts don't have the jurisdiction to overturn an unconstitutional law, well, you'll see how fast that holds up.
You're right. Indeed, that would be tyranny.
"We can violate the Constitution and you have no means of redress." How on Earth can a conservative actually support such a tactic?
Yeah you raise the sentiment that I really share. I have no problem with Mexicans except those that are in the camp of La Raza and that sort of thing.
I think they are hard working and like many Americans today they won't hesitate to accept a handout.
So it's really the socialist system that is the true culprit.
Just today I see an orchestrated attack through the business media on Walmart. I know the real story is their success in staving off the unions. But the attack is taking the approach of substandard benefits and healthcare, etc.
Our socialists have no idea of how to create a prosperous environment. Their single approach is to force their will on all.
But still the 14th Amendment needs to have a resolution on its interpretation as to 'anchor babies'. That loophole needs to be plugged.
The child is being punished. If you are not a citizen of any country, where can you be deported to? And it is possible- you can't guarantee that every country's laws will match up so that every child is a citizen of somewhere.
Let me tell you... people are not dumb, especially when they are desperate for a better life. So, it's the US's fault for encouraging illegals to do this!
The child didn't do anything illegal, and in this country we do not visit the sins of the parents on the sons.
First off, this whole question is based on a hypothetical - what if Mexico denied citizenship to children born of Mexican parents outside of Mexico. I don't think there's any nation on earth that would ever do that, so it's a moot point.
I agree that it's a hypothetical, but it's still useful in exploring exactly what we're talking about. It's not likely, but it's conceivable.
Consider "The Terminal" - lousy movie, but interesting thought. The Tom Hanks character was left without a country - his home nation no longer existed to take him back. That situation is certainly possible.
And before somebody accuses me of blending reality and fiction, the film was based on a true story.
Either way, the child isn't being punished, but simply not being rewarded. There's a difference.
Here I must emphatically disagree. Citizenship isn't a "reward," it's a right. Not a treat for the government to grant or withhold on a whim.
Many people are ravenously hungry for illicit drugs too but that doesn't make it right or excusable as long as it's against the law.
A simple solution to your concern about the children of illegals is to deport them with their family. I don't expect any new Congressional law on birthright citizenship to be overly retroactive if at all so those currently born in the US will have a right to petition their relatives in when they reach 18 but any future kids can go home with their parents when caught.
People in the suburbs will let Juan cut the grass, but aren't going to bus in Americans from the inner city projects out to see their nice houses and cut their grass (and come back later).
You know it and I know it.
No I don't know that and will never buy into it either. There are still large areas in the country where illegals aren't and the lawns are getting mowed, the hotel beds are getting made and those billions of hamburgers at McDonalds are being served.
For most of those using illegal cheap labor it's a convenience not a necessity and like those addicted to drugs they're eventually going to have to learn to live without it.
We are not punishing the child, we are just not giving them anything to which they are not entitled. You are using the same logic that the people who support the DREAM Act are using. They try to claim that by denying a child who was brought here illegally as a minor a subsidized college education we are punishing the child for the illegal acts of his parents. It is not a punishment to deny him a subsidized education because a subsidized education was never a right. Likewise, it is not a punishment to deny a child of illegals, citizenship because it is not that child's right. Only ONE of TWO conditions for birthright citizenship have been met.
In this case, Congress did not envision a future congress who was intelligent enough to discern that we needed a labor source, but had an eviscerated nutsack and was therefore incapable of standing up to the labor unions. They further did not anticipate the willingness of the entire union to tolerate a permanent class of disenfranchised constitutional non-entities as long as they would cut their grass, build their houses, and wash their cars. Finally, they sure as hell did not anticipate that those who profess loudest to be constitutional literalists would advocate the mass deportation of persons whose "crime" was to sneak across the border, rather than figure out a way to admit them to citizenship. You see, they had just fought a nation destroying WAR over the rights of people vs the rights of states, and did not anticipate those who profess the loudest that they wanted to uphold the traditions of freedom being the same persons who essentially don't give a sh!t what we do with illegal immigrants, so long as their wage standards aren't affected, and they can protect their place at the slopping trough for federal handouts.
You are still trying to remove the child's birthright because of actions not his own.
"Birthright " Citizenship should never have happened in the first place.
They won't lose their citizenship. They were born here or immigrated here legally (I.E. They didn't hop over the Rio Grande or swim over Lake Huron to get into this country). You have nothing to fear.
And yet it has. The proper remedy is a Constitutional Amendment, if you don't like it.
Right. How about post #162?
" The Supreme Court will rule that it is the fundamental role of the court to decide on matters of constitutionality, and while Congress has broad discretion within its sphere, it does not have the authority to amend the Constitution by simple legislation, but must follow the Article V amendment procedure."
The Congress is not "amending" the constitution by fiat if it redifines "Jurisdiction" because defining jurisdiction is perfectly within Congress' constitutional rights, and there is a good chance SCOTUS would agree with Congress.
See Below:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:jlnDNpFLQdMJ:commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43144.000/hju43144_0.HTM+%22define+Jurisdiction%22+%22birthright+citizenship%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8
CITIZENSHIP REFORM ACT OF 1997; AND VOTER ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION ACT
Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Watt.
Let me go to myself and direct my first question to Dr. Erler. Now, Dr. Erler, I found your testimony persuasive, and I also found the words of Senator Howard on the Senate floor during the debate on the 14th amendment to be persuasive as well. I don't know how you can ignore the clear meaning of his words.
But the question I had for you is: What is the advantage, why should we pursue Mr. Bilbray's bill as opposed to seeking a constitutional amendment? What are the advantages of trying to change the definition by statute rather than by the Constitution?
Mr. ERLER. Well, I'm of the opinion, as I think you probably are, too, that we ought to amend the Constitution as infrequently as we possibly can. In this instance, I think that Congress has complete power under section 5 of the 14th amendment to DEFINE JURISDICTION [EMPHASIS MINE], to define who is within the jurisdiction of the United States, and in fact has done so on many, many occasions. And so I think that legislation which could cure this increasing public problem that we have is the preferred step.
Mr. SMITH. OK, thank you, Dr. Erler.
I was born here. Where would they deport me to? I want them to be able to deport the riffraff.
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.