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.

 

House Republicans Introduce Bill to Repeal Birthright Citizenship Amendment

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Four Republican lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday that would end automatic granting of American citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal immigrants, arguing "birthright citizenship" is an incentive for illegals to race for the U.S. border.

Reps. Steve King of Iowa, George Miller of California and Rob Woodall and Phil Gingrey, both of Georgia, said the current practice of extending U.S. citizenship to so-called "anchor babies" is a "misapplication" of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Here it is, the 112th Congress starting right off trying to destroy liberty.

It appears they don't want YOU to have a birthright citizenship. Maybe, they will force everyone in the country to pass a citizenship test in order for a person to be deemed WORTHY of citizenship. Otherwise, what? Millions of people with no country?

Perhaps they will make it to where if you aren't conservative enough you will be denied citizenship.

Maybe this is just the start of a larger Conservative plan, first take away the 14th Amendment, then the 13th Amendment is next, that way they can reintroduce slavery to this country.

Are you ready to have your citizenship forcibly stripped from you? Your birthright stolen by those who see you as just a commodity to be bought and sold?



+29 more 
posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Personally I feel that automatic citizenship to those born here under illegal circumstances should be questioned as it can certainly be a reason for coming here to begin with and should therefore be discouraged. There are legal ways of coming here and staying here and even becoming citizens or at least green card holders. Bypassing our laws is criminal and doing it intentionally is a crime against our country. And I think that is one single issue and not necessarily one that leads to the others you mention such as having citizenship stripped from anyone born here under legal circumstances. Sending illegals back is not a question of stripping them of their liberty, they are free to follow the laws or suffer the consequences and they lose their liberties as a result of choices they have made, self-inflicted loss of liberty.
On a similar note, there was a news subject on tv regarding fingerprinting and comparing to a database to find out if people are illegals or not and had been fingerprinted before. The point was made that all people arrested were fingerprinted and so there was no racial profiling as had been protested. Not all illegals are hispanic, of course! There are plenty of people who have overstayed their visas, for example, from many nations, and are hence, illegals. In this town there are many eastern europeans and russians as well as hispanics who are illegals. Another protesting point was raised that these people were being considered criminals even if they were not charged with a crime after being cleared of the reason they were arrested in the first place, but if they were fingerprinted and compared to the database and found to be illegals, they were, in fact, already criminals and treating them as such is what our laws are supposed to do, not be apologists for them..


+20 more 
posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


GOOD! This is great news! Maybe finally we won't have a border problem.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedish
reply to post by whatukno
 


GOOD! This is great news! Maybe finally we won't have a border problem.


I guess that holy constitution was only good for the last two years then. Now that the people that love it so much are in power, it is kind of meaningless?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Interesting.

Birthright jus soli is the current standard by which born Americans attain citizenship. If you are born here, you are a citizen, no questions asked. That was the norm since the ratification of the 14th amendment.

Now, will expectant mothers be required to prove their legal citizenship in order for their children to become legal citizens? What will be the ramifications if the baby cannot acquire citizenship? Will it be deported, along with the mother?

And what about those of us who attained our citizenship by being born here? Are we 'grandfathered in', so to speak?

There are some very shady implications here.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jaxnmarko
 


Of course this doesn't just affect the so called "anchor babies" but every single person who is born in this country.

It may be the first step in the conservative "War on Liberty" resumed from the last time they were in power. Odd, that many conservatives don't remember that The Patriot Act was a GOP bill.

So, the 14th Amendment obviously is under fire from the GOP, what's next? The 13th? Or maybe they will start in on the bill of rights? Maybe they will repeal the 1st Amendment so that "terror mosques" wont be built.

Maybe they will work on repealing the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments so that they can make sure only the RIGHT kind of people are allowed to vote.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


WUK makes a very important point - one that many people fail to miss...

All the rhetoric about restoring our nation to its Constitutional roots... Well the original Constitution only provided voting rights for native born, male, white landholders.

Be careful what you wish and vote for people. It might just bite you in the posterior.

~Heff



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Let's see, if you look at the original decree (Viewing it from the eyes of someone living in late 1700's America) it clearly allows for Native American Indians, French and British citizens to become President but due to a latter amendtion the decree (current period, Ear 2000's America) ordered US natural born only. The only exemption is to either Territories (former, current, future), military families, diplomatic families exclusively. Say a Congresswoman gives birth on foriegn soil that kid is automatically an American citizen thus making them eligible to become President. Yes, it is true that as originally written the King Of England was eligible to become President. Thank God that order is no more! Imagine a Pres. Simon Cowell?

McCain who ran in 08 was born in Panama while it was a US Territory for which it is no longer. Bout to mark like 20 or 30 years as an Soveriegn, Independant Nation!

Obama was born in Hawaii in 1960 and in 1959 it became our 50th State. It is factually accurate that he has lived in Indonesia and Kenya but the most important thing is that his mother never surrendered her or his US citizenship while they were staying with family abroad.

You can live out of the country for 25 years and as along as you never decreed to the US Immigration & Naturalization Service, US Immigration & Customs Enforcement that you intend to relinquish your citizenship that you forever remain an American citizen. Diplomats are eligible for dual citizenship as long as the home nation is that of the US,
edit on 7-1-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


+7 more 
posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 




It appears they don't want YOU to have a birthright citizenship. Maybe, they will force everyone in the country to pass a citizenship test in order for a person to be deemed WORTHY of citizenship. Otherwise, what? Millions of people with no country? Perhaps they will make it to where if you aren't conservative enough you will be denied citizenship. Maybe this is just the start of a larger Conservative plan, first take away the 14th Amendment, then the 13th Amendment is next, that way they can reintroduce slavery to this country. Are you ready to have your citizenship forcibly stripped from you? Your birthright stolen by those who see you as just a commodity to be bought and sold?


What a load of fear mongering, unsubstantiated exaggerations and Slippery Slope logical fallacies . I am with conservatives on this one.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
To cut down of expenses of the state and ensure participants of the state are properly 'educated' ending birthright citizenship is an important step.

Only those who serve the state should be granted citizenship.

At least if I were a tyrannical and dictatorial oligarch that's how I would run things.

I should add, if not being a 'citizen' gets me out of taxation and the alleged 'benefits' of that taxation I could support this.

We can have citizens and non citizens co existing. I dont care to vote or pay taxes or use your infrastructure and I certainly dont trust your cops or your firefighters or any other goons with badges. If not being a citizen means being left alone then bring it on.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 


edit on 7-1-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
The term "anchor babies" is a misnomer. Parents of these babies are not any closer to citizenship than anyone else. They have to wait till the kid is 21 to even sponsor them in the US. And because the parents were illegal, they'd have to wait 10 years after that to apply for citizenship.

How big of a problem are "anchor babies"?



It's important to note that having an "anchor baby" won't do much to help a Mexican mom become a U.S. citizen. Because citizen children cannot sponsor their parents for citizenship until they turn 21 -- and because if the parents were ever illegal, they would have to return home for 10 years before applying to come in -- having a baby to secure citizenship for its parents is an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process.


Source

The data suggests that illegal immigrants come here to work, not to have babies.

I do agree that this is about us all, not just immigrants. Every baby born in the US would be subject to proving their citizenship.

Bottom line... If we enforced our current immigration laws, or made immigration reform a priority, there would be no need to repeal the 14th Amendment.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
How about America adopts the same citizenship plans as Canada and Mexico. Fair is fair right?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

Explanation: So... some of those 'Founding Fathers' ... wrote themselves out of a vote?


Founding Fathers of the United States; Demographics. [wiki]


Demographics
Brown (1976) and Harris (1969) provide detailed demographic information on each man.

*Most of the 1787 delegates were natives of the Thirteen Colonies. Only 9 were born elsewhere: four (Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, and Paterson) in Ireland, two (Davie and Robert Morris) in England, two (Wilson and Witherspoon) in Scotland, and one (Hamilton) in the West Indies.
*Many of them had moved from one state to another. Seventeen individuals had already lived or worked in more than one state or colony: Baldwin, Bassett, Bedford, Dickinson, Few, Franklin, Ingersoll, Hamilton, Livingston, Alexander Martieno, Luther Martin, Mercer, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, Read, Sherman, and Williamson.
*Several others had studied or traveled abroad.


Please note that OL is only picking on the 'native born' bit, as the rest I mostly concur with


Personal Disclosure: S&F! for wuk!



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Why is it fear mongering?

Think about it for a moment, the selling point behind this is because Conservatives in general don't like anyone who speaks Spanish. Don't deny it, the myriad of laws among the southern states reveal the reality of the situation.

However, the unintended consequences of this action? What are those? If this repeal of the 14th Amendment passes, that means that no one born in this country is an automatic citizen. This represents a problem on several levels.

Well for starters, if our lawmakers aren't actually citizens, they can't actually have a job. Removing Birthright Jus Soli Citizenship basically screws over every lawmaker who have to justify their Article I Section 2 requirement for the job.

For your edification or to remind you from the failed reading from yesterday, Article I Section 2 includes this portion:


No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.


If no one in the United States is a citizen, obviously no one in this nation can by the Constitution represent the non existent citizens in this government.

If this passes, every single right you think you have disappears. Because you won't be a citizen. They aren't talking about amending this Amendment, they are talking about a complete repeal.

No citizens, no representatives, no United States.


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
A child must be born to an American citizen has the birthright. The 14th ammendment was never meant for what it is used for today.

Should not be that hard to comprehend


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


McCain was born in a military base, which is considered American soil.

Ann Durham did not meet citizen requirements as she moved out of country. She had baby Obama at age 18. She did not live the required number if years in the US, according to the laws at the time.

Not rocket science folks.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


If that were the case, all they would have to do is amend the Amendment. But they aren't they are wanting to completely repeal the Amendment.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
They aren't talking about amending this Amendment, they are talking about a complete repeal.


I don't believe they're talking about repealing the 14th amendment.



The House legislation would amend Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. Technically, it would not overturn the 14th Amendment, which would require three-quarters of states to ratify a joint resolution of Congress.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...


We need to look into this bill and what it actually says. Doesn't look as though its aim is to repeal the 14th amendment.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Ann Durham did not meet citizen requirements as she moved out of country.


What? When did this happen? When did she move out of the country?
edit on 1/7/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


If that were the case, all they would have to do is amend the Amendment. But they aren't they are wanting to completely repeal the Amendment.


I agree, and I do not agree with what they are doing. But something needs to be done so people can't game the system.




top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join