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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 361-379 next last
To: Vicomte13

Wording aside, should foreginers born here be immigrants?


61 posted on 11/04/2005 6:39:21 AM PST by Killborn (Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
In order to qualify for American citizenship when born, the MOTHER must be a legal resident at the time of birth.

When is that determination made? Do I, as an adult, have the right to prove that my mother was a legal resident and have any previous determination that I am not a citizen changed? Is the burden on the mother to prove that she is a legal resident or on the government to prove that she is not?
62 posted on 11/04/2005 6:41:08 AM PST by BikerNYC (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Killborn
Wording aside, should foreginers born here be immigrants?

If they're born here, by definition they aren't "foreigners."

Personally, I would like to change the law to only bestow citizenship on children who are born in this country to at least one parent who is a citizen or legal resident. But I'm not kidding myself - that will take a Constitutional amendment, and isn't likely.

63 posted on 11/04/2005 6:43:35 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: jackbenimble
But lots of our illegals don't come across the border but simply overstay a valid tourist visa past its expiration date. What will we do about them?

Put Blockbuster in charge of Visa Control. /sarc (For those for whom it isn't obvious)

64 posted on 11/04/2005 6:44:27 AM PST by HiJinx (~ www.ProudPatriots.org ~ Serving Those Who Serve Us ~ Operation Season's Greetings ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM

How about eliminating the undeserved benefit to children who bring their foreign parents over here to collect social security even though the parents never paid a dime?


65 posted on 11/04/2005 6:45:28 AM PST by Rockitz (After all these years, it's still rocket science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Killborn
Embassies are not just "considered" foreign property. They are defined as foreign property by law, from Congress. You are missing the whole point.

John / Billybob
66 posted on 11/04/2005 6:46:14 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (Do you think Fitzpatrick resembled Captain Queeg, coming apart on the witness stand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
How about eliminating the undeserved benefit to children who bring their foreign parents over here to collect social security even though the parents never paid a dime?

That's a good idea, and that wouldn't require an amendment.

67 posted on 11/04/2005 6:46:52 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Killborn
Wording aside, should foreigners born here be immigrants?

In my opinion, if they came here legally on a tourist or immigration visa then they have consented to be subject to the jurisdiction of our laws and yes, if they were to have a baby they would be BOTH born on our soil AND subject to our jurisdiction.

On the other hand, the child of an illegal who chose to live outside the jurisdiction of our laws only meets ONE of the TWO requirements.

I think there is lots of room for argument on these points. The other side can also make some very valid points. The Constitution puts sole authority for determining our immigration policies in the hands of Congress. They, rather than the courts, should decide what the clause means.

68 posted on 11/04/2005 6:47:29 AM PST by jackbenimble (Import the third world, become the third world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

yes, people that argue that babies born here are citizens via the Constitution are wrong. It was another bad Supreme Court decision that has put us in this mess.


69 posted on 11/04/2005 6:47:43 AM PST by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: brothers4thID; GrandEagle

I don't believe it takes an Amendment to get rid of the illegals-born-into-citizenship problem. See, the 14th also contains the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", something that could be established does not apply to those who criminally invade our country (and the spawn thereof).


70 posted on 11/04/2005 6:47:50 AM PST by thoughtomator (Alito Akbar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: smith288
I have seen successful indian (from India) have kids here and make something valuable of themselves and become productive segment of society.

As I understand Tancredo's proposal, kids of folks who are here legally would be citizens.

71 posted on 11/04/2005 6:48:19 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: smith288

The Indian babies you refer to, they were born to illegals?


72 posted on 11/04/2005 6:48:47 AM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jackbenimble
OK, I'm not spoiling for a fight here. If an illegal is not "subject to the jurisdiction of" then we have no authority to arrest them, or do anything what so ever with them no matter what they did.
In times past, "subject to the jurisdiction or" is used to include territories and possessions of the U.S. government. This is necessary when the clause applies the them because the Constitution is an agreement between the states, and doesn't include possessions of the US government.
The 14th is very clear unless the Klinton rule "it depend what you mean by sex" rule is applied.
The 14th was never intended to provide cover for illegals to enter and stay. As another poster pointed out, it was intended to correct the issue of what to do with the newly freed slaves. Until then, the states determined who was a citizen. "We the people", for better or worse, have now given that authority to the Federal Government. I simply suggested we correct the wording so that "we the people" are protected from a Federal Government that refuses to do its job and protect our border.

Cordially,
GE
73 posted on 11/04/2005 6:50:38 AM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
who bring their foreign parents over here to collect social security even though the parents never paid a dime?

Great idea. The guiding principle of our immigration policy should be to benefit the citizens that are already here. Almost nobody benefits when we bring in old people who will never contribute as much as to our treasury as they will take out. There should be an age cut-off on immigrants and it should be fairly young so we can get some work and taxes out of them.

74 posted on 11/04/2005 6:53:34 AM PST by jackbenimble (Import the third world, become the third world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Again, if one is physically present in a country, you are "subject to the jurisdiction of" unless you have diplomatic immunity. If not, then we would be helpless to do anything with them no matter what they did. If they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of" then we cant arrest them, detain them, or do anything with them - they are not subject to the jurisdiction of out nation.
Again, this clause is included so that US possessions are included in the clause, not just States.
75 posted on 11/04/2005 6:54:52 AM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM

It would really help.


76 posted on 11/04/2005 6:55:44 AM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
But if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then they wouldn't be here in the first place. So the actions of the illegals themselves deny the basis on which citizenship is granted to the anchor children.
77 posted on 11/04/2005 6:57:13 AM PST by thoughtomator (Alito Akbar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: highball

I'm 60/40. I do think something needs to be done regarding anchor baby prob. I kind of like that people born here are automaatic citizens but if this is better for America, I'll take it.


78 posted on 11/04/2005 6:57:22 AM PST by Killborn (Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
Congress has the authority to strip anyone of their citizenship.

So no constitutional amendment is required.

They would technically be US citizens when born according to the constitution... but then would have that citizenship stripped from them by congress.
79 posted on 11/04/2005 6:57:43 AM PST by conservative physics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

"I know, I know they were legal aliens but I'm speaking about how it would be spun in the media. We'd see one story after another about some poor "immigrant" (aka crimalien) who just came here to work to feed his hungry children, blah, blah, blah... big bad mean xenophobic conservatives...blah, blah, blah..."

Funny, the MSM never seems to track down a MS-13 member in prison for chopping someone to pieces for these interviews.


80 posted on 11/04/2005 6:57:57 AM PST by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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