Repeal birthright citizenship? - The Firearms Forum

berto64 · 01-11-2011, 12:40 AM

Long read but you need to see it.

WASHINGTON - The architects of Arizona's toughest-in-the-nation immigration law have turned their attention to birthright citizenship, joining with lawmakers from other states Wednesday to unveil legislation aimed at forcing the federal courts to reconsider the constitutionality of granting U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the United States.

document The legislation

The children of illegal immigrants must be prevented from automatically becoming citizens in order to stop "nothing less than an invasion" of foreigners across U.S. borders, said Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican and founder of State Legislators for Legal Immigration, which is pushing the legislation.

Metcalfe and other members of the group said at a press conference that they hope their efforts will result in a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court stating that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not meant to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

Experts in constitutional law maintain that that's unlikely because the framers of the amendment in the 1860s clearly intended to grant citizenship to anyone born in the United States regardless of their parents' status.

"Since the late 19th century, the Supreme Court has clearly said that all born in the United States are U.S. citizens," said Erwin Chemerinsky, the founding dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law. "This would be a dramatic change in the law, and it's very unlikely to happen."

Civil rights groups also announced Wednesday that they have formed a new coalition, Americans for Constitutional Citizenship, to fight the legislators' efforts.

"The purported purpose of this insidious proposal is to help reform our nation's immigration system," said Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. "But the real purpose in creating a two-tiered group of citizens is something far darker, far more divisive and, we believe, decidedly un-American."

The lawmakers who unveiled the model bill acknowledged that the legislation, even if passed by state legislatures, would have no immediate effect on the children of illegal immigrants or their families.

The draft bill defines who is and isn't a citizen of a particular state. But it also says that state citizenship doesn't carry with it any special rights, benefits, privileges or immunities under law. Babies born to illegal immigrants in states that pass the legislation would not be stripped of any of the current rights or benefits they receive, the lawmakers said.

Instead, the bill, if passed, is designed to draw a legal challenge from immigration advocates over the definition of a U.S. citizen and force the issue into the federal courts for clarification of the 14th Amendment.

"The bottom line: What we want is our day in court," said Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the main supporters of Arizona's controversial Senate Bill 1070, which makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally.

Kavanagh and Arizona state Sen. Ron Gould, both Republicans, said they plan to introduce legislation in the next few weeks that would define what it means to be an Arizona citizen. The bill also is supported by Arizona state Senate President Russell Pearce, one of the authors of SB 1070.

That definition would say that an Arizona citizen must be a U.S. citizen, who would be defined as someone who is born in the United States and has at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. Naturalized U.S. citizens also would be considered Arizona citizens.
Kavanagh and Gould both said they expect the Arizona Legislature to pass the bill, most likely in April.

Metcalfe said lawmakers in about 20 states have expressed interest in introducing the bill in their state legislatures. In addition to Metcalfe and the Arizona lawmakers, state legislators from South Carolina and Oklahoma spoke in favor of the bill Wednesday.

State Legislators for Legal Immigration, which has members from state legislatures in 40 states, announced the legislation at the National Press Club. Their press conference was interrupted several times by immigrant rights' activists who shouted that the legislation was racist and inhumane and held up a sign saying "Protect the 14th Amendment."

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1868 and states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The amendment's primary intent was to guarantee citizenship to African-Americans, particularly former slaves. The question of whether the authors also intended to allow the children of illegal immigrants to automatically become citizens has been a matter of debate. The dispute focuses on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Opponents of birthright citizenship argue that illegal immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Others say that the words merely were meant to exclude U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats or occupying enemy armies, the two well-known exceptions to birthright citizenship under English common law. American Indians also were left out because the U.S. government considered their tribes to be quasi-sovereign.

Garrett Epps, an expert on the 14th Amendment and a law professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, said the state legislators either don't understand the amendment or are purposely misstating its intent. He maintains that illegal immigrants clearly fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government and state governments and can be sued, arrested, charged and incarcerated for violating federal and state laws.

"The historical record on this is very clear," Epps said. "The proponents of citizenship-stripping basically misstate the record, quote parts of the original debate and then leave out all the parts that don't support their position. ... This is about politics, not law."

Kris Kobach, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law who helped draft SB 1070 for Arizona lawmakers, said the birthright citizenship bill does not attempt to rewrite the 14th Amendment or usurp the federal government's power to make immigration law.
Instead, he said, it revives the concept of state citizenship and asserts a state's authority to define the terms of that citizenship.

"It's a very calculated first step," he said.

In addition to unveiling a draft bill, the legislators proposed a separate plan that encourages states to enter into compacts with one another to change their birth certificate systems to note on birth records whether a person's parents were U.S. citizens or not.

Any compact would have to be approved by Congress, which is considered unlikely in the Democratic-led Senate.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...#ixzz1AhqHhdpH

Big ugly · 01-11-2011, 01:07 AM

Oh yeah, its about damn time

Alpo · 01-11-2011, 09:30 AM

This idea is wrong. If you are born in America, then you are American. This is how it is, and how it should be.

They just need to outlaw "anchor babies".

"Okay bubba, you're illegal so you are getting deported back to where you came from. And because you came here illegally, you are banned from ever coming here legally."

"But my son was born in Los Angelas, and is an American citizen."

"Yes, he is, and he is not being deported. He is American and can stay here. You can either leave him with a friend or relative that is here legally, or we will put him in foster care. You, your wife and your other kids, however, are getting kicked out. We are not heartless, however, and do not wish to break up a family. You can take your American son with you, back to wherever it is you came from, and when he reaches his majority, if he wishes, he can come back home to America. The rest of you ain't never gonna get back to the Land of the Big PX again."

Warith · 01-11-2011, 01:46 PM

I have to agree with ALPO on this.

What I worry about is people that say things like this.

"The purported purpose of this insidious proposal is to help reform our nation's immigration system," said Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. "But the real purpose in creating a two-tiered group of citizens is something far darker, far more divisive and, we believe, decidedly un-American."

What is insidious about what they are proposing? Everhing they (socialeletist) are doing is insidious.

"But the real purpose in creating a two-tiered group of citizens is something far darker, far more divisive and, we believe, decidedly un-American." The Obamites and his supporters are the ones trying to do this so they are trying to shovel off what they are trying to do on to what others are trying to do to shift the blame for when it actualy happens on to we the people that believe in the american way of life.

Tom · 01-11-2011, 01:47 PM

The pertinent section is:

Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. …

The fighting will be over the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The argument is: Illegal aliens aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US and therefore shouldn’t be granted automatic citizenship.

The issue of anchor babies apparently came up as a result of a footnote by Justice Brennan to an unrelated opinion. Not sure how many years ago it might have been, but it can’t be too old.

ofitg · 01-13-2011, 04:28 PM

According to the Mexican Constitution, Title 1, Chapter 2, Article 30, a child born of Mexican parents in a foreign country is automatically a Mexican citizen.

armedandsafe · 01-13-2011, 06:00 PM

The same birthright is true of children of British citizens who are born abroad.

Pops

Bobitis · 01-13-2011, 06:42 PM

What are the rules in Kenya?

Eddie N · 01-13-2011, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alpo

This idea is wrong. If you are born in America, then you are American. This is how it is, and how it should be.

They just need to outlaw "anchor babies".

"Okay bubba, you're illegal so you are getting deported back to where you came from. And because you came here illegally, you are banned from ever coming here legally."

"But my son was born in Los Angelas, and is an American citizen."

"Yes, he is, and he is not being deported. He is American and can stay here. You can either leave him with a friend or relative that is here legally, or we will put him in foster care. You, your wife and your other kids, however, are getting kicked out. We are not heartless, however, and do not wish to break up a family. You can take your American son with you, back to wherever it is you came from, and when he reaches his majority, if he wishes, he can come back home to America. The rest of you ain't never gonna get back to the Land of the Big PX again."

Funny how I was just thinking about this earlier. I agree with this. But, you know, there are others...

shorter260513 · 01-13-2011, 10:31 PM

i think the entire family should be sent back but the kid born in the states could decide at a certain age which nationality do you choose i think this is how it works for american citizens who have children abroad and as for the parents yes they broke the law but they should still be able to file for legal entry into america unless they are criminals in their own country or have been deported for crimes commited here other than just illegal entry might be wrong but sounds fair to me

tech16024 · 01-13-2011, 11:10 PM

!st post and starting out on the wrong foot by getting involved in politics

allow un/under employed construction workers to sue employers for lost wages based on unfair / illegal trade practices. it is already illegal to be here illegally (duh?). Also, where are they living? isn't it a crime to harbor (rent to) someone breaking the law?
If we can't kick them out, lets remove the support system so it's not beneficial for them to be here?!?!
Can we sue Immigration if we report suspected/known illegals and the do nothing? What if they are driving with no license no insurance and hit my car?
Common practice is get someone pregnant and just relocate and change names to avoid paying child support.
Mexico won't extradite on ANY case that could involve the death penalty, so in states that have the death penalty an illegal (mexican) that commits murder and makes it back to Mexico most likely is safe from prosicution (has been some cases of individuals being brought back in the trunk of a car)

just joined cuz I just bought a Ruger MkIII - Semper Fi

CampingJosh · 01-13-2011, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobitis

What are the rules in Kenya?

Hatch · 01-16-2011, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alpo

This idea is wrong. If you are born in America, then you are American. This is how it is, and how it should be.

They just need to outlaw "anchor babies".

"Okay bubba, you're illegal so you are getting deported back to where you came from. And because you came here illegally, you are banned from ever coming here legally."

"But my son was born in Los Angelas, and is an American citizen."

"Yes, he is, and he is not being deported. He is American and can stay here. You can either leave him with a friend or relative that is here legally, or we will put him in foster care. You, your wife and your other kids, however, are getting kicked out. We are not heartless, however, and do not wish to break up a family. You can take your American son with you, back to wherever it is you came from, and when he reaches his majority, if he wishes, he can come back home to America. The rest of you ain't never gonna get back to the Land of the Big PX again."

/VETO

No, you're here illegally and therefore your spawn is here illegally, and soaking up MY tax dollars in hospitals, schools, public aid, entitlement programs, free lunches... all of it.

Mexicans need to stay in Mexico, if they want to immigrate to the USA there are clearly defined legal routes that allow that. How about this... Mexico would be a much better place if all the Mexicans who want to just have an honest days work would stop leaving one of the most corrupt countries on the planet and start forcing their Govt to be accountable to the honest citizens.

No such thing as an anchor baby, just another illegal alien that needs to be IMMEDIATELY deported along with their parents.

pandamonium · 01-16-2011, 12:15 PM

Greeting folks, new to this forum, hope i can contribute here and learn too.

Here is the way I see this. The 14th is, IMO, as cut and dry as the 2nd. If a person is born on American soil, that person is a citizen. That does NOT automatically grant citizenship or any US Constitutional rights to the parents. The child would be a citizen, the parents not. Many in this country have dual citizenship, thats cool with me, no problem there.

The real problem is that there are many in our government(read liberal/socialistic), who will stop at nothing to keep their jobs, including allowing the invasion that is happening at our borders. And I have no doubt these same officials would love to grant amnesty to all the illegals in the country to buy their votes!

What I see with this bill, and I do believe that there is good intent, is mostly just political posturing, as in, look at what we're trying to do but the evil Dems won't let us! Don't get me wrong, I am NOT siding with the Liberal left, but I try to see through the BS and look at the way the system works.

The fix really isn't that hard, it just isn't politically correct and would piss off a whole lot of bleeding hearts, so it will probably not happen untill things are too far gone to fix.

Bobitis · 01-16-2011, 12:48 PM

Welcome pandamonium. Great 1st post.
Welcome to tech16024 as well. Another great post.

goofy · 03-08-2011, 05:52 AM

hospaccx What are talking about I have seen your post on other parts of this forum just what are you trying to sell? and WHY?????......GOOFY

carver · 03-08-2011, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatch

/VETO

No, you're here illegally and therefore your spawn is here illegally, and soaking up MY tax dollars in hospitals, schools, public aid, entitlement programs, free lunches... all of it.

Mexicans need to stay in Mexico, if they want to immigrate to the USA there are clearly defined legal routes that allow that. How about this... Mexico would be a much better place if all the Mexicans who want to just have an honest days work would stop leaving one of the most corrupt countries on the planet and start forcing their Govt to be accountable to the honest citizens.

No such thing as an anchor baby, just another illegal alien that needs to be IMMEDIATELY deported along with their parents.

Man, I really want to agree with you, and I feel the same way you do. However, the 14th Amendment states plainly that if you are born here, then you are a citizen of this Country, and to the State in which you were born. Still, at the time the 14th was placed as law no one meant for that new born baby to have rights that extended to the parents, and they did not mean for there to be welfare, food stamps, or any other Government hand outs for the new citizen, or the parents. Let's not get all this confused. Some in Government have seen a way to screw the tax payer, destroy the American way of life, get rich, and they have done an end run around the Constitution.

Juker · 03-08-2011, 08:01 AM

Also consider the era, and the nature of this nation, when the 14th was written. Far different times, and the authors could not have foreseen the staggering tax burden that would be placed on American citizens, and how illegal aliens would overwhelm the free ride system.

BTW, I ordered some of those hospital curtains and furniture from Hospaccx and they SUCKED.

jlloyd73 · 03-08-2011, 09:00 AM

Sadly nothing will come of this........ no matter that the majority of Americans want.

ozo · 03-08-2011, 10:20 AM

"This idea is wrong. If you are born in America, then you are American. This is how it is, and how it should be.

They just need to outlaw "anchor babies".
_________________
First of all, you can't have both. It is contradiction.

" Still, at the time the 14th was placed as law no one meant for that new born baby to have rights that extended to the parents, and they did not mean for there to be welfare, food stamps, or any other Government hand outs for the new citizen, or the parents."
__________________
In the era of mass immigration thru Ellis Island all the immigrants not only were 'vetted' but had to also show what skill or benefit they would bring to this country, as to not be a burden.

Try to move from the US to Canada and see what requirements you need and what hoops you will jump thru.
You had better have un-wavering skill(s) and $$$$$$$-just to be considered initially.

hunter29180 · 03-08-2011, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom

The pertinent section is:

Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. …

The fighting will be over the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The argument is: Illegal aliens aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US and therefore shouldn’t be granted automatic citizenship.

in all cases where a person from another country, (not just mexico) commits a crime not a felony and not causing bodily harm to a US citizen, the official response is to deport them, as the US has no desire to claim jurisdiction over a foreign national. therfore they are not subject to said jurisdiction. following our own governments logic those children cannot be citizens as their parents do not qualify for jurisdiction.. if they did then we would NOT deport them untill they had paid for the crime as does a REAl CITIZEN!

WHILE I FEEL FOR THOSE ANCHOR CHILDREN HERE NOW! i still feel that they are not a citizen..if they wish to become one, we do have a way they can become one...but they must go through the process..to do any less SPITS in the face of all those who sacrificed so much just to become a citizen!

justice in these cases would truly be served by fairly addressing the concerns and rights of the current citizens of our country..its time we the people request our government to allow a NATIONAL VOTE. we should be tired of having our minds made up for us and insist we have voice in such a far reaching national policy...LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK!! QUIT SECOND GUESSING US!! ASK US WHAT WE THE PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL! dont allow a few special intrest groups to speak for the majority~~

off soap box now! next??

01-11-2011, 12:40 AM	#1
berto64 VMBB Admin Staff Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Owyhee County, Idaho Contributor Posts: 7,385	Repeal birthright citizenship? Long read but you need to see it. WASHINGTON - The architects of Arizona's toughest-in-the-nation immigration law have turned their attention to birthright citizenship, joining with lawmakers from other states Wednesday to unveil legislation aimed at forcing the federal courts to reconsider the constitutionality of granting U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the United States. document The legislation The children of illegal immigrants must be prevented from automatically becoming citizens in order to stop "nothing less than an invasion" of foreigners across U.S. borders, said Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican and founder of State Legislators for Legal Immigration, which is pushing the legislation. Metcalfe and other members of the group said at a press conference that they hope their efforts will result in a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court stating that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not meant to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Experts in constitutional law maintain that that's unlikely because the framers of the amendment in the 1860s clearly intended to grant citizenship to anyone born in the United States regardless of their parents' status. "Since the late 19th century, the Supreme Court has clearly said that all born in the United States are U.S. citizens," said Erwin Chemerinsky, the founding dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law. "This would be a dramatic change in the law, and it's very unlikely to happen." Civil rights groups also announced Wednesday that they have formed a new coalition, Americans for Constitutional Citizenship, to fight the legislators' efforts. "The purported purpose of this insidious proposal is to help reform our nation's immigration system," said Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. "But the real purpose in creating a two-tiered group of citizens is something far darker, far more divisive and, we believe, decidedly un-American." The lawmakers who unveiled the model bill acknowledged that the legislation, even if passed by state legislatures, would have no immediate effect on the children of illegal immigrants or their families. The draft bill defines who is and isn't a citizen of a particular state. But it also says that state citizenship doesn't carry with it any special rights, benefits, privileges or immunities under law. Babies born to illegal immigrants in states that pass the legislation would not be stripped of any of the current rights or benefits they receive, the lawmakers said. Instead, the bill, if passed, is designed to draw a legal challenge from immigration advocates over the definition of a U.S. citizen and force the issue into the federal courts for clarification of the 14th Amendment. "The bottom line: What we want is our day in court," said Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the main supporters of Arizona's controversial Senate Bill 1070, which makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. Kavanagh and Arizona state Sen. Ron Gould, both Republicans, said they plan to introduce legislation in the next few weeks that would define what it means to be an Arizona citizen. The bill also is supported by Arizona state Senate President Russell Pearce, one of the authors of SB 1070. That definition would say that an Arizona citizen must be a U.S. citizen, who would be defined as someone who is born in the United States and has at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. Naturalized U.S. citizens also would be considered Arizona citizens. Kavanagh and Gould both said they expect the Arizona Legislature to pass the bill, most likely in April. Metcalfe said lawmakers in about 20 states have expressed interest in introducing the bill in their state legislatures. In addition to Metcalfe and the Arizona lawmakers, state legislators from South Carolina and Oklahoma spoke in favor of the bill Wednesday. State Legislators for Legal Immigration, which has members from state legislatures in 40 states, announced the legislation at the National Press Club. Their press conference was interrupted several times by immigrant rights' activists who shouted that the legislation was racist and inhumane and held up a sign saying "Protect the 14th Amendment." The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1868 and states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The amendment's primary intent was to guarantee citizenship to African-Americans, particularly former slaves. The question of whether the authors also intended to allow the children of illegal immigrants to automatically become citizens has been a matter of debate. The dispute focuses on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Opponents of birthright citizenship argue that illegal immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Others say that the words merely were meant to exclude U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats or occupying enemy armies, the two well-known exceptions to birthright citizenship under English common law. American Indians also were left out because the U.S. government considered their tribes to be quasi-sovereign. Garrett Epps, an expert on the 14th Amendment and a law professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, said the state legislators either don't understand the amendment or are purposely misstating its intent. He maintains that illegal immigrants clearly fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government and state governments and can be sued, arrested, charged and incarcerated for violating federal and state laws. "The historical record on this is very clear," Epps said. "The proponents of citizenship-stripping basically misstate the record, quote parts of the original debate and then leave out all the parts that don't support their position. ... This is about politics, not law." Kris Kobach, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law who helped draft SB 1070 for Arizona lawmakers, said the birthright citizenship bill does not attempt to rewrite the 14th Amendment or usurp the federal government's power to make immigration law. Instead, he said, it revives the concept of state citizenship and asserts a state's authority to define the terms of that citizenship. "It's a very calculated first step," he said. In addition to unveiling a draft bill, the legislators proposed a separate plan that encourages states to enter into compacts with one another to change their birth certificate systems to note on birth records whether a person's parents were U.S. citizens or not. Any compact would have to be approved by Congress, which is considered unlikely in the Democratic-led Senate. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...#ixzz1AhqHhdpH __________________ Be who you are & say what you will, Those that matter won't mind and those that mind don't matter. I'm a bitter clinger, One Nation Under God. -->

01-11-2011, 01:07 AM	#2
Big ugly Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Knoxville Tennessee Contributor Posts: 2,603	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? Oh yeah, its about damn time __________________ "You say the Devil made do it with a smile. Raisin' hell and howlin at the moon. Well I'm gonna put your @$$ back in line. I'm gonna scare the Devil out of you." BlackBerry Smoke Song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R513dA4peMg Nothing is "proof" against a truly talented fool. Swanshot

01-11-2011, 09:30 AM	#3
Alpo Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: NW Florida Posts: 8,651	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? This idea is wrong. If you are born in America, then you are American. This is how it is, and how it should be. They just need to outlaw "anchor babies". "Okay bubba, you're illegal so you are getting deported back to where you came from. And because you came here illegally, you are banned from ever coming here legally." "But my son was born in Los Angelas, and is an American citizen." "Yes, he is, and he is not being deported. He is American and can stay here. You can either leave him with a friend or relative that is here legally, or we will put him in foster care. You, your wife and your other kids, however, are getting kicked out. We are not heartless, however, and do not wish to break up a family. You can take your American son with you, back to wherever it is you came from, and when he reaches his majority, if he wishes, he can come back home to America. The rest of you ain't never gonna get back to the Land of the Big PX again." __________________ Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy, and taste good with catsup - George of Lod, Year of Our Lord 297 I always take precautions. Beware the Evil Bullet Fairies.

01-11-2011, 01:46 PM	#4
Warith V.I.P. Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Belton, Mo Posts: 287	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? I have to agree with ALPO on this. What I worry about is people that say things like this. "The purported purpose of this insidious proposal is to help reform our nation's immigration system," said Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. "But the real purpose in creating a two-tiered group of citizens is something far darker, far more divisive and, we believe, decidedly un-American." What is insidious about what they are proposing? Everhing they (socialeletist) are doing is insidious. "But the real purpose in creating a two-tiered group of citizens is something far darker, far more divisive and, we believe, decidedly un-American." The Obamites and his supporters are the ones trying to do this so they are trying to shovel off what they are trying to do on to what others are trying to do to shift the blame for when it actualy happens on to we the people that believe in the american way of life.

01-11-2011, 01:47 PM	#5
Tom V.I.P. Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Maryland Posts: 197	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? The pertinent section is: Article XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. … The fighting will be over the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The argument is: Illegal aliens aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US and therefore shouldn’t be granted automatic citizenship. The issue of anchor babies apparently came up as a result of a footnote by Justice Brennan to an unrelated opinion. Not sure how many years ago it might have been, but it can’t be too old.

01-13-2011, 04:28 PM	#6
ofitg Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Contributor Posts: 1,447	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? According to the Mexican Constitution, Title 1, Chapter 2, Article 30, a child born of Mexican parents in a foreign country is automatically a Mexican citizen.

01-13-2011, 06:00 PM	#7
armedandsafe Former Guest Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Moses Lake, WA Posts: 10,344	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? The same birthright is true of children of British citizens who are born abroad. Pops

01-13-2011, 06:42 PM	#8
Bobitis Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 6,612	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? What are the rules in Kenya? __________________ ^.^ A point in every direction is the same as having no point at all

01-13-2011, 10:31 PM	#10
shorter260513 V.I.P. Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 262	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? i think the entire family should be sent back but the kid born in the states could decide at a certain age which nationality do you choose i think this is how it works for american citizens who have children abroad and as for the parents yes they broke the law but they should still be able to file for legal entry into america unless they are criminals in their own country or have been deported for crimes commited here other than just illegal entry might be wrong but sounds fair to me

01-13-2011, 11:10 PM	#11
tech16024 V.I.P. Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 93	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? !st post and starting out on the wrong foot by getting involved in politics allow un/under employed construction workers to sue employers for lost wages based on unfair / illegal trade practices. it is already illegal to be here illegally (duh?). Also, where are they living? isn't it a crime to harbor (rent to) someone breaking the law? If we can't kick them out, lets remove the support system so it's not beneficial for them to be here?!?! Can we sue Immigration if we report suspected/known illegals and the do nothing? What if they are driving with no license no insurance and hit my car? Common practice is get someone pregnant and just relocate and change names to avoid paying child support. Mexico won't extradite on ANY case that could involve the death penalty, so in states that have the death penalty an illegal (mexican) that commits murder and makes it back to Mexico most likely is safe from prosicution (has been some cases of individuals being brought back in the trunk of a car) just joined cuz I just bought a Ruger MkIII - Semper Fi

01-16-2011, 12:15 PM	#14
pandamonium Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: South Jersey Posts: 36	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? Greeting folks, new to this forum, hope i can contribute here and learn too. Here is the way I see this. The 14th is, IMO, as cut and dry as the 2nd. If a person is born on American soil, that person is a citizen. That does NOT automatically grant citizenship or any US Constitutional rights to the parents. The child would be a citizen, the parents not. Many in this country have dual citizenship, thats cool with me, no problem there. The real problem is that there are many in our government(read liberal/socialistic), who will stop at nothing to keep their jobs, including allowing the invasion that is happening at our borders. And I have no doubt these same officials would love to grant amnesty to all the illegals in the country to buy their votes! What I see with this bill, and I do believe that there is good intent, is mostly just political posturing, as in, look at what we're trying to do but the evil Dems won't let us! Don't get me wrong, I am NOT siding with the Liberal left, but I try to see through the BS and look at the way the system works. The fix really isn't that hard, it just isn't politically correct and would piss off a whole lot of bleeding hearts, so it will probably not happen untill things are too far gone to fix.

01-16-2011, 12:48 PM	#15
Bobitis Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 6,612	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? Welcome pandamonium. Great 1st post. Welcome to tech16024 as well. Another great post. __________________ ^.^ A point in every direction is the same as having no point at all

03-08-2011, 05:52 AM	#16
goofy Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Contributor Posts: 2,018	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? hospaccx What are talking about I have seen your post on other parts of this forum just what are you trying to sell? and WHY?????......GOOFY

03-08-2011, 08:01 AM	#18
Juker Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Land of Lincoln Contributor Posts: 2,872	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? Also consider the era, and the nature of this nation, when the 14th was written. Far different times, and the authors could not have foreseen the staggering tax burden that would be placed on American citizens, and how illegal aliens would overwhelm the free ride system. BTW, I ordered some of those hospital curtains and furniture from Hospaccx and they SUCKED. __________________ SHOOT FIRST. SHOOT SECOND. MOST IMPORTANTLY, BE THE MAN WHO'S SHOOTING LAST.

03-08-2011, 09:00 AM	#19
jlloyd73 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Contributor Posts: 1,931	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? Sadly nothing will come of this........ no matter that the majority of Americans want.

03-08-2011, 10:20 AM	#20
ozo Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Nashville TN Posts: 2,770	Re: Repeal birthright citizenship? "This idea is wrong. If you are born in America, then you are American. This is how it is, and how it should be. They just need to outlaw "anchor babies". _________________ First of all, you can't have both. It is contradiction. " Still, at the time the 14th was placed as law no one meant for that new born baby to have rights that extended to the parents, and they did not mean for there to be welfare, food stamps, or any other Government hand outs for the new citizen, or the parents." __________________ In the era of mass immigration thru Ellis Island all the immigrants not only were 'vetted' but had to also show what skill or benefit they would bring to this country, as to not be a burden. Try to move from the US to Canada and see what requirements you need and what hoops you will jump thru. You had better have un-wavering skill(s) and $$$$$$$-just to be considered initially. __________________ http://www.nranews.com/#/nranews, "ozo. you're off your rocker sir." -johnlives4christ http://www.prisonplanet.com/ -America,Bless GOD- Last edited by ozo; 03-08-2011 at 10:28 AM..