Posted on 05/26/2009 5:27:42 AM PDT by Sinschild
Edited on 05/26/2009 5:30:31 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, a Republican candidate for governor of Georgia, has proposed changing the long-standing federal policy that automatically grants citizenship to any baby born on U.S. soil, a move opposed by immigrant rights advocates.
Supporters of Deal
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
It wasn’t abused until recently, now it’s time to end it!
I agree with him. The anchor baby phenomena has ruined many a formerly good school near me, cost us a fortune, and created a class of future voters who will likely go for the party who promises them the nicest free ride.
I agree, too.
Federal policy? If it's written into the Constitution then there are rules on the proper way to change the Constitution.
Obviously AKA isn’t the only empty suit, our second walking 9/11, embodied marxist agenda in our midst!
But....he is not alone....
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/republican-party-red-from-the-start-by-alan-stang/
I propose a individual based meritocracy ... service brings citizenship
Choose any of the following service modes to gain the right to vote:
2 years active military service (or any amount of time if medical discharge with 50% disability or greater)
4 years reserve or guard duty military service
4 years direct civil service (Fed, state or local full time employee)
6 years national critical civilian job (critical defense contractor for example or a nuke plant operator, etc)
Loss of citizenship (and federal voting privileges) as a result of federal or state felony conviction that results in longer than 1 year prison sentence. Citizenship could be reestablished by once again qualifing
“the long-standing federal policy?”...
I was wondering the same thing, too.
The Constitution says that the birthright is for people ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. Children of diplomats do not become citizens if born in the US. If someone is here illegally, how can they say they are under the jurisdiction?
Someone from Georgia gets it right! Wonder of all wonders - a Rebublican politician NOT pandering to the (90% illegal) “hispanic community.” good for you Nathan.
Great idea!
Too late...
The liberals interpret the 14th Amendment in an effort to get more ACORN voters.
What would you do with people who volunteered for service, but were turned down by Uncle for, say, defective eyesight?
I agree with ending this.
Opponents say the proposed law wouldn’t solve the illegal immigration problem and goes against this country’s traditions of welcoming immigrants.
What has to stop is welcoming the children of ILLEGAL immigrants with automatic citizenship.
If they don't follow our immigration laws they cannot be citizens.
Citizenship by simply being born in the U.S. is one of the stupidest and most liberally and wrongly applied interpretations of the Amendments to the Constitution.
Should have never been applied as it has been. Anchor babies are just wrong. The intention was for children of freed slaves ...not illegals.
Long overdue.
For those of you who have never spent much time in So California, it has been abused badly.
Or, at least someone used them. Recently Mexicans discovered they could come here, build houses, and go back home with a pittance as the housing market dried up due to overbuilding.
They were the lucky ones. Many earlier groups were stuck.
It’s not written into the Constitution! It was a Supreme Court decision that “read into the meaning” that created anchor babies!
It was a bad ruling and it needs to be changed!
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.