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 ...
“They are subjects of another country from a citizenship standpoint.”
And tell me again where in the 14th Amendment that it states that this amendment is referring to the application of criminal laws? As I remember, since you did me the favor of posting it to me - this has to do with , uh...CITIZENSHIP!!!
Funny how all this comes full circle - isn’t it?
I would appreciate a review of my comments in 62.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2258255/reply?c=61
“The moment you send back a family of a Commie country with their infant, you’ve effectively destroyed any hope of that infant’s future, and the family’s already reduced ability to protect their child.”
I personally “destroyed any hope”? You are starting to make me feel bad - oh wait, that was my lunch backing up on me - sorry.
Lets be honest - if they were here requesting diplomatic immunity from one of those “Commie” countries, they would have already been given a suite at the Waldorf Astoria on my dollar! So, we are not talking about rampant Chinese take over of the US the last time I looked!
However, I have seen that Hispanics (from all over) ARE in fact coming here in droves and dropping babies left and right to get to stay here! Heck by your argument, we should INVADE Mexico, China and few of these other merciless countries - I mean it is for the good of the children!
Because if an illegal alien is caught committing a crime, they can be punished under U.S. law. A diplomat and his family have diplomatic immunity, and cannot be prosecuted for violating U.S. law even if they commit a crime here.
I concur with your posting. I believe that is how the liberal court ruled as well - they completely forgot the testing points and the clarification line.
I'm sure that it the way you'd try to sell it, but the effect is the same: Only current or former federal employees would have the rights of citizens.
I'm imagining a country where unionized TSA screeners make up a sizeable percentage of voters. Kind of like letting the foxes determine how the henhouse is run.
The courts have found otherwise.
And as I stated before, it was a bad ruling that needs to be changed!!!
I believe that you will find that foreign officials are charged with criminal acts in the United States.
Which one? There are a number of rulings, some going back over 100 years, that agreed that children born here are, with few exceptions, U.S. citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
I do not believe that the “anchor baby” policy was ever intended by the constitution. The clause about being subject to the laws of the United States, IMHO, would mean the babies of legal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are not here legally and therefore not subject to but one law...deportation.
The Supreme can reinterpret and overturn itself. Of course Congress has more power than they ever use for that purpose.
Sadly I think all the crazy court decisions, are really what congress desires, but this way they don't have to take the heat.
Remember we have recently heard some Governors claim they will follow the courts rulings, when clearly they had means to resist the decisions.
I guess most of them lost their nerve when George Wallace was threatened with arrest on the capital steps.
George stood up for the wrong reason, but the precedent was set, so here we are.
Simple: United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Because this is the one that decided that as long as you are on American soil you are an American. Even though it should be pointed out that in this case, his parents were LEGAL non-citizens!
As was stated in the dissenter’s opinion for this case. In the view of this decision, those children born to non-citizens in America on vacation could become President, but those children born to American-citizens who are in Europe for vacation would NOT be allowed! Of course, starting with our present President, none of this seems to matter anymore!
All I know is that there is more to being an American than where you place your feet when the baby hits the ground!
My argument has nothing to do regarding the perversion of the “with the children” mantra argued by the left. This is a fundamental basic human rights position. I’m not in the business of, nor do I advocate, the systematic brainwashing of children, as the statement you are using intends to delineate. Don’t twist my position into something sinister.
I COMPLETELY agree that illegals should be sent back. The problem is that we aren’t ENFORCING the immigration laws on the books.
In fact, one of the ways to punish illegals would be to send them home and put their newly American-born children into an orphanage. This is what they’ve risked, so be it. Go back home, the child is no longer yours.
Want to see illegals tuck tail and go back? Take their children born here from them. THAT will make them run for the border before the birth.
Also, I noticed you didn’t even tackle the argument I used about Moses. He was of slave blood among the Masters. He (with the hand of God) changed the world.
IT’S NOT THE CHILD’S DECISION. If their country won’t acknowledge them, what then?
What happens to the child if the parents die, as in Elian Gonzalez, whose mother was in fact by statutory law a citizen? Clinton sent him back. You accuse me of taking a liberal slant, yet YOU are the one siding with Bill Clinton and Janet Reno!
Your position and argument are xenophobic at best. Believe what you want, I really don’t care. I’m just pointing out to you that it reeks of neglect and denial.
“My argument has nothing to do regarding the perversion of the “with the children” mantra argued by the left.”
YOU are the one that brought up that it was for the good of the innocent children, not me! So don’t go tucking tail now and blaming me for twisting your position - don’t want it cited, don’t bring it up!
Next, as far as enforcement goes - apparently we agree! We are not enforcing our current laws; that IS the problem, the anchor babies only EXACERBATES that problem!
I did not mention the Moses argument because I don’t question the means that God works His wonders! It is not for me to decide nor approve nor “tackle”. I guess it is a good thing there was no “must be born in an Inn” law during Jesus’ birth or you would argue that Jesus should be aborted as well - I mean it is the law and he was born in a manger. Ask stupid hypothetical’s and get some in return!
Now, if you think I am siding with the Clinton’s on anything, then you are surely mistaken. Elian Gonzalez made it to American soil from an oppressive country and as the law is written, he should have been given US Citizenship as soon as his feet touched the soil! He was NOT picked up by the Coast Guard - he made it! The situation with Elian Gonzalez is just the same as I stated in my last post - you think we should invade Cuba to take care of those innocent people? Not just the kids, ALL those innocent people?
We cannot, and we SHOULD not “help” those that won’t help themselves. Coming here and taking from us, just because we are good hearted is not helping one’s self it is THEFT! I guess if someone breaks into your house and gives birth in your living room, they should be allowed to stay and you have to pay! I mean asking them to leave would be xenophobic!
Also time to slow all immigration and refugee resettlement. Close the borders and let us look at what we have.
As the child of two legal immigrants--one who was later naturalized as a U.S. citizen, and the other remained a permanent resident--I wholeheartedly support this proposal, which is, in fact, quite generous, as it only requires one parent (either mother or father) to be legally under the jurisdiction of the United States.
“I’m just pointing out to you that it reeks of neglect and denial.”
With this argument, you think we should invade every country on the face of the planet that does not create an opportunity at least as good as we have in America for their children! To do less is being negligent; do you agree?
You think having children stay here and not go back is a punishment? They come here so that we pay for their kids education, welfare, health and school lunch! Heck we already adopted them, we just don’t sever the parental rights!
I really don’t care what you think, call me heartless; but, I don’t want them or their children (in an orphanage) on the US government teat!
You know what, I say we create a settlement zone somewhere - like Egypt and Turkey and other countries have done so as to “care” for those displaced, but NOT allow them in our country. Hey, it seems to be working so well for them, how about we give that a try?
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.