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

Skip to comments.

GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | November 4, 2005 | By Stephen Dinan

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; 2good2betrue; 4thefuture; aliens; anchorbabies; gop; illegals; makeitretroactive; tancredo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 361-379 next last
To: Reaganwuzthebest

"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."

There are?

Really?

Where would those be?

Not the Northeast or the Northwest, or the Great Lakes or California or Texas or Florida or the Southeast or the Mountain States.

Where are these "large area of the country" that don't rely upon large illegal communities to do tremendous amount of manual and agricultural labor?

Alaska, I guess. That's large.
Where else?


221 posted on 11/04/2005 10:07:50 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: LWalk18
Many, maybe even most illegal immigrants in this country come in legally and then overstay their visa

Estimates are that 10 million are here illegally. I don't think your assumption is correct

The study estimates that the visa overstay population in the United States is at least 3.6 million people, out of an estimated 9 million to 10 million illegal immigrants. (Source)


222 posted on 11/04/2005 10:08:32 AM PST by Flyer (The Internet, my dog and you ~ http://dahtcom.com/masoncam/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: chronic_loser
I actually think defining the jurisdiction that way is a great idea.
Depends on your objective. If the objective is to win, then it may be good.
However, if your objective is to try and maintain a Constitutionally functioning government it is a VERY poor one IMHO.
I adamantly oppose abortion. However, I would also oppose efforts where congress redefined "abortion" as being removing stale gasoline from your lawnmower.
This game could be played over and over and the effect would be that we have no Constitution.
The Constitution if the very document that grants the Federal Government its authority. We can not allow anyone to render it completely meaningless.

Just an opinion.

GE
223 posted on 11/04/2005 10:09:49 AM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Thinking about that gives some problems. You have taken the embassy of Japan and removed it from US Jurisdiction. That means the US (and Virginia? DC? Maryland?) laws DO NOT APPLY in those places. They become, like our embassies abroad, an extension of a foreign country. So far, so good.

However, if you attempt to say that illegals here are "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the US gov't, or the governments of the respective states, then we legally cannot prosecute them for commiting misdemeanors or felonies, right?

This is new territory to me, and I could be miles off base, but I really don't think we want to go there to solve a problem with our own socialistic handout programs.

224 posted on 11/04/2005 10:10:16 AM PST by chronic_loser (Handle provided free of charge as flame bait for the neurally vacant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
Not the Northeast or the Northwest,

Well I live in the Northeast and in an area not populated by illegals yet. We have hundreds of small farms throughout the state, tourist attractions like Indian casinos and guess what, we're doing just fine and the work is getting done.

225 posted on 11/04/2005 10:12:09 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Flyer

3.6 million out of 9-10 million isn't most, but it isn't insignificant either- over one-third of illegals.


226 posted on 11/04/2005 10:12:43 AM PST by LWalk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

"There are?

Really?

Where would those be?



So is this to say that the figure 20 million illegals (that some say is WAY HIGH) are serving 280 million hamburgers, cutting their grass, slaughtering their pigs at rendering plants, cleaning toilets?

That is a red herring post if I ever saw one!


227 posted on 11/04/2005 10:14:51 AM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
Sez you.
Nope, sez the Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution. You can also check the writings of the Founders, many of which are found in both the Federalist and the anti-Federalist papers. Onn this point there was absolutely no disagreement between the founders.
In addition, SCOTUS has absolutely no enforcement authority, as the court of the Dred Scott days found out.
In another point, there is no authority granted for the court to "review" any law for its Constitutionality. By default, at times it does, but there must be injury of some type before the court can even hear a case.

GE
228 posted on 11/04/2005 10:18:27 AM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

Yep, some guy has that opinion.
You do too.

Go ahead and try to, just like that, with a snap of Congress' fingers, legislate Marbury v. Madison out of existence. For that is what you are suggesting.

Did you just see the humiliating face-slam-into-the-mud that President Bush and his team took over the Harriet Miers nomination, when suddenly the whole base of support was wrenched out from under them?

Now think about the same thing that happened to FDR when he tried something LEGAL: packing the Supreme Court.

Go ahead and try to override Marbury by a simple majority vote in Congress. You think it will work. I am telling you that what will happen is you will lose on the issue, the people will side with the Supreme Court, and your party will be driven from office.

Of course, I may be wrong. You may win.
In which case I guarantee you that the next time Democrats win back the Congress, which will happen eventually, they will enact their entire agenda, and there will be no such thing as judicial review. Nationalize property? DONE! We, the Congress, say that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to review it. Indeed, a "No Constitutional Review" clause would become the standard text of every piece of legislation.

Wouldn't it be grand if it were that easy to reduce the tripartite structure of government to just Congress and the President? Sure, if you're a Jacobin.

Anyway, good luck with that.
It'll never fly.
The American people will never buy a simple Congressional veto of the Supreme Court, and they will not buy letting Congress override Marbury v. Madison by a simple sentence: "We say the Supreme Court has no constitutional review power over this law."


229 posted on 11/04/2005 10:18:47 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
Had not previously seen this quote, but good for Tom. Of course, I agree completely.

I don't see our spineless crapweasels in Washington doing anything about this until the heat is turned up. Way up.

230 posted on 11/04/2005 10:19:25 AM PST by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
It sounds like it would only work if we defined the "jurisdiction of the US" as any birthing room of an illegal immigrant, now that I have a bit of time to think about it. I can't see that surviving SCOTUS review, whether it is smart to do it or not.

I gotta admit, though, it was novel and a different approach. I had never heard it before.

I really don't think we are going to fix this situation till we find a populace and a congress who have courage enough to tell both the labor union Buchananite xenophobes and the leftist welfare advocates both to piss off. Both equally. I don't see it happening.

231 posted on 11/04/2005 10:19:36 AM PST by chronic_loser (Handle provided free of charge as flame bait for the neurally vacant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

".........regularize everyone on the US side of it."

Wrong.

No Shamnesty.


232 posted on 11/04/2005 10:19:59 AM PST by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Well I live in the Northeast and in an area not populated by illegals yet.
GERAT! Build a wall......FAST!
233 posted on 11/04/2005 10:20:59 AM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: jackbenimble

"Respectfully, why do you suppose the framers included that phrase about jurisdiction?"

Because the Indian tribes were still in possession of half of the land of the United States, and were born within the United States, but they were still their own nations, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And nobody wanted to make the Sioux and the Apache citizens by the amendment.
That's why.
Same bit about "indians not taxed" being excluded from the Census in the Constitution of 1787.


234 posted on 11/04/2005 10:21:19 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM

"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."

ABSOLUTELY. The amendment to the constitution which allows this was enacted to provide citizenship to freed slaves after the civil war, not to extend a gravy train to an army of invading Goths and Vandals.


235 posted on 11/04/2005 10:21:29 AM PST by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

"Well I live in the Northeast and in an area not populated by illegals yet. We have hundreds of small farms throughout the state, tourist attractions like Indian casinos and guess what, we're doing just fine and the work is getting done."

I live in CT and we are absolutely swamped with illegals.


236 posted on 11/04/2005 10:22:20 AM PST by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

"It is not his opion it is a FACT that Congress can define jurisdiction."

Of course Congress can. Nobody disputes that.
But that is limited.
Congress cannot remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to review acts for Constitutionality. It can remove access to the courts on the merits of an issue, but it cannot remove from the Supreme Court the power to review a law to say whether or not it's a legal law under the Constitution.


237 posted on 11/04/2005 10:23:17 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
GERAT! Build a wall......FAST!

After living in Arizona and seeing the problem up close and personal I think that's a splendid idea.

238 posted on 11/04/2005 10:23:33 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: chronic_loser
I don't see it happening.
Unfortunately I share your opinion.
Another novel approach was mentioned way back in the thread. Just simply enforce the law and protect us from invasion.

Cordially,
GE
239 posted on 11/04/2005 10:24:30 AM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

Which state?
I live in Connecticut. Illegals do all of the menial work.


240 posted on 11/04/2005 10:24:31 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 361-379 next last

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.

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