It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) Wants Review of Birthright Citizenship

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) officially supports a review of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which grants children of undocumented immigrants status as U.S. citizens, his office confirmed to the Huffington Post on Monday.


www.huffingtonpost.com...


In offering his support, McConnell becomes the highest-ranking Republican figure to call for examining the reach of the 14th amendment. On Sunday, his chief deputy, Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.) told CBS' Face the Nation that he too would back hearings into revising citizenship laws. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) -- a one-time proponent of comprehensive immigration reform -- has explicitly called for the 14th Amendment's repeal.


Wow... I think this issue has been visited before, but now with the economy, the business with the Mexico/ Arizona border issues, SSI and current Welfare and Insurance for the Poor issues, I expect this to blow up and become something quite different...

With our deficit as it is, I cannot imagine how well the arguments that support citizenship and social welfare for the children of illegals will be from an economic standpoint. Emotion will not play well here, I imagine.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by thegoodearth]




posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
They should have done away with the birthright citizenship a loooong time ago. Just because you come here ilegally and have a baby, shouldn't make that baby a citizen. That is ridiculous!



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
The 14th Amendment does not automatically grant citizenship to 'anchor babies'. Rather, what it does is to facilitate the process so that these individuals have an edge in the process. A rough analogy would be that the aliens are allowed to jump to the front of a long line.

Section 1 of the Amendment is the section of interest. Note the very important underlined words:


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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

en.wikipedia.org...

Anchor babies are not under the jurisdiction of the US. They are an appendage of their parents, and fall under the jurisdiction of the country that holds jurisdiction over their parents. They still must go through a process to get citizenship; this is where the 14th Amendment 'greases the wheels' for them.

Whatever. This law should be terminated, but through legislative process, not through a constitutional amendment. An amendment would never gain the necessary super majority votes needed to pass, especially in these very turbulent times.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Well I'll tell you one thing, those republicans sure respect the US Constitution....NOT



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Absolutely incorrect! Once a foreign national enters the United States or any of its territories, the United States has ABSOLUTE jurisdiction! The subject of jurisdiction is intended to address the citizenship question of children born on military bases, in embassies or in territories such a Puerto Rico.

As a result, ANY child born to a "resident", either legal or illegal, is conferred US Citizenship upon the child's birth. Hence, Anchor Babies! The only limiting factor is if the parents are subjects of a foreign government. An example would be John and Judy Smith from the UK are visiting their friends in Boston when Judy suddenly goes into labor and has a child. Because they are here under UK passport and on Visa, their child is NOT eligible for US Citizenship as they are subjects of a foreign government. People here illegally are NOT on passport or visa and are, therefore, NOT subjects to a foreign government AND are under US jurisdiction. As a result, their child is conferred citizenship.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by damwel
Well I'll tell you one thing, those republicans sure respect the US Constitution....NOT


What a cryptic, nonsensical reply. Please add something to the discussion except for your obvious partisan pap.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 




As a result, ANY child born to a "resident", either legal or illegal, is conferred US Citizenship upon the child's birth


There is no such thing as an illegal resident.

Try putting an illegal Mexican alien on Death Row and see how quickly Mexico screams foul.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 





An amendment would never gain the necessary super majority votes needed to pass,


That is why it shouldn't pass. It also doesn't have any traction with the majority of "real" Americans.

There are enough Constitution loving, apple pie eating, "real" Americans that believe in the 14th Amendment and what it stands for.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell waits till he has been in office for 26 years before coming up with this idea for a review.

He has had no problems with the process for 26 years.

This is just another political game of shifting blame to the illegals.


Illegals aren't the ones making decisions.

All Congress has to do is pass a law that at least one parent has to be legal in order to get federal assistance.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
man no way
no way will any liberal let them do this

democrats want and need the hispanic votes.


i do agree no anchor babies but the reality of it its not gonna solve the immigration issue.

they will still come
they will still stay

as long illegals get their free healthcare,welfare,social security they aint going nowhere its delusional to think otherwise.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell waits till he has been in office for 26 years before coming up with this idea for a review.


And how long did it take the Republicans to focus on illegal immigration again?

How long did it take these folks to give a damn about the presidents eligibility?


Its political ya know? and like clockwork most ATSers are parroting and following suit. Many of these politicians really dont give a damn, its just a ploy for them to gain attention intime for the midterm elections. 9 years ago it was muslim arab terrorists... then it was about government spending and today its about illegals, whats next?

As for anchor babies? The parents are not automatically citizens just because the child was born here. They still have to go through a process and in anycase I wonder how many Americans today were the result in some way of an anchor baby... It be interesting to figure out how many tea party protesters have some anchor baby in em'


[edit on 3-8-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   


Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.
en.wikipedia.org...




Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), commonly referred to as The Dred Scott Decision, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants—whether or not they were slaves—were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States.
en.wikipedia.org...

So let's see. Republicans want to revert back to Dred Scott?

Let us then take this to its logical conclusion. Only Native Americans who can trace their ancestry to before 1492 can be US citizens. All others will live in reservations established by law by the newly elected congress consisting of those determined by new restrictive citizenship standards. Non citizens will be deported when deemed necessary by the duly elected citizen only congress.

I think DNA tests will show that most Mexicans have some native American ancestry.

Actually, that sounds fairly reasonable.


[edit on 3-8-2010 by pthena]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
"Only Native Americans who can trace their ancestry to before 1492 can be US citizens."

no they arnet simple fact the united states didnt exist yet

if you want to call them americans thats fine


and since my family has been in the usa for over 250 years i can trace my ancestory back to ireland does that make me an irish citizen?

[edit on 3-8-2010 by neo96]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
All it takes is a constitutional amendment. The new restrictive citizen group gets the Constitution, Government, all territories pertaining thereto; in short; the whole nine yards. Mucking with constitutional amendments can have far reaching results.

I thought conservative Rebublicans had a motto, "Hands off my Constitution!"



and since my family has been in the usa for over 250 years i can trace my ancestory back to ireland does that make me an irish citizen?

That shows where you can be deported to. Your Lucky!

[edit on 3-8-2010 by pthena]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by neo96
All it takes is a constitutional amendment. The new restrictive citizen group gets the Constitution, Government, all territories pertaining thereto; in short; the whole nine yards. Mucking with constitutional amendments can have far reaching results.

I thought conservative Rebublicans had a motto, "Hands off my Constitution!"



way to go dude i been wanting to say something long these lines in a response to republican/constitution deal.


democrats say the same thing case in point constitution and gun control- simple fact the constitution gives every american right to own a gun/firearms.

it was liberals/democrats that tell me what kind i can own.

even obamacare craps on the constitution


so that dog dont hunt friend:p

[edit on 3-8-2010 by neo96]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Check this out:

Anchor Baby Business for Chinese to get US Passports.

www.alipac.us...


SHANGHAI -- What can $1,475 buy you in modern China? Not a Tiffany diamond or a mini-sedan, say Robert Zhou and Daisy Chao. But for that price, they guarantee you something more lasting, with unquestioned future benefits: a U.S. passport and citizenship for your new baby.

Zhou and Chao, a husband and wife from Taiwan who now live in Shanghai, run one of China's oldest and most successful consultancies helping well-heeled expectant Chinese mothers travel to the United States to give birth.

The couple's service, outlined in a PowerPoint presentation, includes connecting the expectant mothers with one of three Chinese-owned "baby care centers" in California. For the $1,475 basic fee, Zhou and Chao will arrange for a three-month stay in a center -- two months before the birth and a month after. A room with cable TV and a wireless Internet connection, plus three meals, starts at $35 a day. The doctors and staff all speak Chinese. There are shopping and sightseeing trips.

The mothers must pay their own airfare and are responsible for getting a U.S. visa, although Zhou and Chao will help them fill out the application form.

At a time when China is prospering and the common perception of America here is of an empire in economic decline, the proliferation of U.S. baby services shows that for many Chinese, a U.S. passport nevertheless remains a powerful lure. The United States is widely seen as more of a meritocracy than China, where getting into a good university or landing a high-paying job often depends on personal connections.

"They believe that with U.S. citizenship, their children can have a more fair competitive environment," Zhou said.
www.alipac.us...


They're not breaking the law; they are merely taking advantage of it.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by mishigas]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas

Check this out:

Anchor Baby Business for Chinese to get US Passports.

www.alipac.us...


SHANGHAI -- What can $1,475 buy you in modern China? Not a Tiffany diamond or a mini-sedan, say Robert Zhou and Daisy Chao. But for that price, they guarantee you something more lasting, with unquestioned future benefits: a U.S. passport and citizenship for your new baby.

Zhou and Chao, a husband and wife from Taiwan who now live in Shanghai, run one of China's oldest and most successful consultancies helping well-heeled expectant Chinese mothers travel to the United States to give birth.

The couple's service, outlined in a PowerPoint presentation, includes connecting the expectant mothers with one of three Chinese-owned "baby care centers" in California. For the $1,475 basic fee, Zhou and Chao will arrange for a three-month stay in a center -- two months before the birth and a month after. A room with cable TV and a wireless Internet connection, plus three meals, starts at $35 a day. The doctors and staff all speak Chinese. There are shopping and sightseeing trips.

The mothers must pay their own airfare and are responsible for getting a U.S. visa, although Zhou and Chao will help them fill out the application form.

At a time when China is prospering and the common perception of America here is of an empire in economic decline, the proliferation of U.S. baby services shows that for many Chinese, a U.S. passport nevertheless remains a powerful lure. The United States is widely seen as more of a meritocracy than China, where getting into a good university or landing a high-paying job often depends on personal connections.

"They believe that with U.S. citizenship, their children can have a more fair competitive environment," Zhou said.
www.alipac.us...


They're not breaking the law; they are merely taking advantage of it.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by mishigas]




man its pretty sad when china is more capitalistic than we are



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
Let us then take this to its logical conclusion. Only Native Americans who can trace their ancestry to before 1492 can be US citizens. All others will live in reservations established by law by the newly elected congress consisting of those determined by new restrictive citizenship standards. Non citizens will be deported when deemed necessary by the duly elected citizen only congress.

I think DNA tests will show that most Mexicans have some native American ancestry.

Actually, that sounds fairly reasonable.


[edit on 3-8-2010 by pthena]


Everyone may think this is highly implausible... however-

Actually, this is the plan of the UN in Agenda 21. Not to deport people back to their country of origin, but to place all people in "tightly sustainable communities"- so basically, all North American citizens in reservations, not just the Native Americans, and there will be no choice, as there is now.
And there will be no tax free zone.
(At least in the non-Native American reservations, anyway)
Read about the plan in my other thread:


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Both Australia and New Zealand no longer grant citizenship as a birth right . In the case of New Zealand people from overseas would have there baby here and only come back if the kid needed access to our healthcare system . The US Federal government needs to (but won't) do its job and secure the country's border .Only after the US borders have been secured can the need to remove birth right citizenship need to be examined .

Cheers xpert11.




top topics



 
3

log in

join