Repeal birthright citizenship?

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by berto64, Jan 11, 2011.

  1. berto64

    berto64 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2001
    Messages:
    7,491
    Location:
    Owyhee County, Idaho
    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/artic...s-introduced05-ON.html#comments#ixzz1AhqHhdpH
  2. Big ugly

    Big ugly New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,682
    Location:
    Knoxville Tennessee
    Oh yeah, its about damn time
  3. Alpo

    Alpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    10,527
    Location:
    NW Florida
    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."
  4. Warith

    Warith Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Belton, Mo
    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.
  5. Tom

    Tom Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    Maryland
    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.
  6. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,447
    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.
  7. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

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

    Pops
  8. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    What are the rules in Kenya?
  9. Eddie N

    Eddie N New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,192
    Location:
    Colorado
    Funny how I was just thinking about this earlier. I agree with this. But, you know, there are others...
  10. shorter260513

    shorter260513 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    262
    Location:
    Tennessee
    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
  11. tech16024

    tech16024 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    Messages:
    93
    !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
  12. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,307
    Location:
    Indiana
    :D:D:D:D:D
  13. Hatch

    Hatch Former Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    287
    /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.
  14. pandamonium

    pandamonium New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Messages:
    36
    Location:
    South Jersey
    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.

    :mad:
  15. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

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

    goofy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,776
    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:mad:
  17. carver

    carver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    15,045
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just we
    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.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2011
  18. Juker

    Juker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,872
    Location:
    Land of Lincoln
    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.
  19. jlloyd73

    jlloyd73 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,965
    Sadly nothing will come of this........ no matter that the majority of Americans want.
  20. ozo

    ozo Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,307
    Location:
    Nashville TN
    "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.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2011
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Petition to repeal and confiscate Apr 8, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Petition Urging Repeal of New York's Gun Law Gets 40,000 Signatures In One Day Jan 16, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum repeal the twenty-second article Jan 6, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Virginai repeals one handgun a month limit Feb 29, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum The Declaration Of Independence Has Been Repealed Apr 9, 2009