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: 11
21
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by TimBrummer
 


Really? Stripping Americans of their citizenship is NOT a solution to illegal immigration. Fact of the matter is, even if this worked the way you claim it works, that would not solve the "terror anchor baby" situation. Nor would it solve anything at all about illegal immigration. All this would do is cause innocent infants to become criminals through no fault of their own.

Yea, once they get through with this, why not just repeal the 13th Amendment? And re-institute slavery in America? That would be a boon to those that treat us as slaves anyway.


Unfortunately they cannot repeal your ignorance and idiocy, nothing you wrote is remotely true. And if you are a slave, you made yourself one.




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I agree. Our Founding Fathers had a vision.

It is not something I want to destroy.


You mean things like Representative Democracy? Majority rule? Over 2/3rds of informed Americans want the immigration laws enforced, and oppose automatic citizenship for illegal alien babies. What happened to no taxation without representation?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TimBrummer
 


I agree that most Americans want the immigration laws enforced. (they being informed, well, that's debatable) But the how is what many don't agree with.

It simply does not solve the problem at all to remove everyones citizenship. It just doesn't Even if it wasn't retroactive, the children prior to the repeal of the 14th Amendment would still be considered Americans. Thus, solving nothing.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





It simply does not solve the problem at all to remove everyones citizenship. It just doesn't Even if it wasn't retroactive, the children prior to the repeal of the 14th Amendment would still be considered Americans. Thus, solving nothing.


You seem to have troubles with simple logic. There will be no MORE anchor babies if this passes. That does not sound to me like solving nothing. It closes one of the biggest holes in US immigration policy.
edit on 10/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 




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.




Pathetic


edit on 10-1-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)Lemon.Fresh is $#@$@# idiot

edit on 10-1-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Well, what about all the ones that have been born here already? Do they just magically vanish? Is that what happens to them? Or, will it be retroactive, stripping everyone of their birthright citizenship and basically making it so that no one anywhere in the United States is actually a citizen.

It's not simple logic, there have been babies born here for a long time now, today a child of an illegal couple will be born (more than likely more). So what of them? As it stands now, those children will be given citizenship, but they won't vanish if this repeal happens, they will still be here.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 




Well, what about all the ones that have been born here already?


They are already US citizens, nothing can be done about them.

But there wont be more like them in the future. Isnt it better than doing nothing and turning a blind eye to anchor baby problem?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


So it basically does nothing. Gotcha. All I needed to know, basically nothing.

This does nothing to stop illegal immigration, all it does, is potentially strip every American of their jus soli citizenship.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Bringing a sudden halt to any further increase of anchor babies (and undeportable illegal immigrant parents anchored with them) is nothing? I am starting to think you must really be a troll..

Jus soli is not needed at all if you have jus sanguis, so that a moot point.
edit on 10/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


The reality is, the children's parents can be deported now under current immigration law, and they are forced to take the children with them, the problem with these children is that they can come back when they are 21 and claim their citizenship, then, after a set amount of years bring over their relatives under another current immigration law.

All repealing the 14th Amendment does (besides nullifying every Americans citizenship) is close a small probably rarely used loophole in the current immigration law.

This does absolutely nothing to solve the larger real immigration problem.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I agree that to really solve the immigration problem this law alone is not enough, but its still better than doing nothing, especially since it would have NO adverse effects, certainly not those you still speak of, even when refuted thousands of times.
It is a step in the right direction.

To solve the illegal immigration problem, in addition to repealing birthright citizenship, you would also need to properly protect the border, and introduce national citizen ID card, which exists in almost all countries around the world.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TimBrummer

Originally posted by Annee
I agree. Our Founding Fathers had a vision.

It is not something I want to destroy.


You mean things like Representative Democracy? Majority rule? Over 2/3rds of informed Americans want the immigration laws enforced, and oppose automatic citizenship for illegal alien babies. What happened to no taxation without representation?



Question: do you think about any ethnicity other then Mexican when you think about immigration laws?

No one ever mentions the illegal Canadians - - of which there are plenty.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Question: do you think about any ethnicity other then Mexican when you think about immigration laws?

No one ever mentions the illegal Canadians - - of which there are plenty.


Unlike you, I will not dodge the question. If you look at my prior posts, you will see yes I think of all nationalities, including illegal Canadians who incidentally are way down the list on number of illegal aliens in the USA. But Mexicans deserve special attention because there are more Mexican illegal aliens than all other nationalities combined, and because they have officially admitted they are using illegal immigration to re-take political control of the Southwest for the benefit of Mexicans:
www.americanpatrol.com...
www.youtube.com...

La Raza Cosmica anchor babies supporting La Reconquista:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Patriotic Americans who have first hand experience with La Raza Reconquista:
www.diggersrealm.com...
(Scroll down to CNN video)

From the Tuscon Civil Rights Examiner blog:

By El diablo:
"The defeat of the Dream Act is just a small speed bump on the road to Reconquista. La Raza is still here and more of us come every day. You gringos will not stop us. One day soon we will have the numbers that even the politicians cannot ignore. Then we will have amnesty. We are La Raza, the future of America. Stupid, lazy, cowardly white boys can't even get their women to have their children at replacement levels. You gringos are a defeated people, you just don't know it yet.

There will be no need for La Raza to overthrow the government. In a generation, we will be the government, and it will be you white boys on the internet talking of revolution, but by then it will be too late. You are the inferior race to La Raza. Go back to Europe, wetbacks.

Viva La Reconquista!"

By Sancho:
"I hate to inform you gringos but we messicans are in every city and well armed. What your gov has not told you is we messicans will be the death squads that will round you bad gringos up and take you to FEMA camps. Your own gov wants you dead and they have been training alot of us messicans at the School of Americas on how to deal with a bad people. what do think happened in El Savador and
other south american countries you remember the death squads that is why we are here and the military told us we can kill anybody we want"

If you want to experience Reconquista first hand go live in Maywood California for a week.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Jus soli is not needed at all if you have jus sanguis, so that a moot point.

That’s what you propose? We discard completely the jus soli standard?

If we’re going by jus sanguinis, is a child a US citizen at birth, when born abroad to one US citizen parent, but who happens to be a former “anchor baby”? Or that should be an exception as well?

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, should a child born in the United States to legal permanently residing aliens not be a US citizen by virtue of birth?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TimBrummer
But Mexicans deserve special attention because there are more Mexican illegal aliens than all other nationalities combined, and because they have officially admitted they are using illegal immigration to re-take political control of the Southwest for the benefit of Mexicans:

“Officially admitted”? Did someone, speaking for all Mexicans, whose authority is recognized, in an official capacity, say that “Mexicans should use illegal immigration to re-take political control”? Or maybe, just maybe, you are picking out the views of a particular group that in no way represents the views of a whole country or class of people?

Hey, I hear a lot of people in the middle east say all Americans officially admit the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have the purpose to eventually convert everyone there to Christianity. It must be true.

I don’t think the Constitution should be changed to address one particular social phenomenon, most likely temporary — unless of course you believe Mexicans will always try to illegally move to the US regardless of the conditions on both countries — when there’s other means to address the problem of illegal immigration.

But, sure, go ahead and try to pass a Constitutional amendment. I’ll even help you with your cause by suggesting what the amendment should say—

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, unless they are anchor babies, Mexicans or some kind of hispanic people, definitely no muslims allowed, and people in general who don’t look similar to me or that talk with some funny accent.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

“Officially admitted”? Did someone, speaking for all Mexicans, whose authority is recognized, in an official capacity, say that “Mexicans should use illegal immigration to re-take political control”?


Guess you didn't check the links:

Mexican President Zedillo
"I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important - a very important - part of it."- July 23, 1997

Mexican Ambassador Osuna
"I think we are practicing la Reconquista in California ." NY Times , April 14, 1998

San Diego Mexican Consulate spokesman, Alberto Lozano,
"this country has been and will be Mexico." March 2008

Please read and watch all the links before asking more questions.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
One more here:
www.nytimes.com...

MEXICO CITY, Sept. 2 — President Felipe Calderón
“I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico,”



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Whatukno, if you are going to decry a bill which is being proposed then please paste the text of the proposed bill on the thread so that everyone can review it and make up their own mind. You instead decide you want to go with the most far left interpretation of the bill and use it as rhetoric against the people involved. I don't see the point - until I see the text of the bill I won't be persuaded one way or the other. I remember, when I first learned about this loophole to citizenship I was dismayed but I 100% do not believe the bill contains the language that you suggest it does.
edit on 1/10/2011 by ararisq because: typo



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

I don’t think the Constitution should be changed to address one particular social phenomenon, most likely temporary — unless of course you believe Mexicans will always try to illegally move to the US regardless of the conditions on both countries — when there’s other means to address the problem of illegal immigration.

It's not temporary, it's been going on for 50 years, and the level is increasing. You have no experience to comment about it until you have lived in Maywood California for a week.



But, sure, go ahead and try to pass a Constitutional amendment. I’ll even help you with your cause by suggesting what the amendment should say—

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, unless they are anchor babies, Mexicans or some kind of hispanic people, definitely no muslims allowed, and people in general who don’t look similar to me or that talk with some funny accent.


Maybe that's what you want, not me since I have a Vietnamese wife and in-laws, Chinese orphan daughter, employees from Mexico, Laos, Philippines, and China, and friends from dozens of different countries.

But since you implied discrimination, what to you think about the fact that illegal immigration benefits 30 Latin Americans for every Asian, African, or European who benefits: immigrantrightsfoundation.org... Is it OK with you for immigration to be biased 30 to 1 in favor of Latinos?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 





That’s what you propose? We discard completely the jus soli standard?


Exactly, discard it. Jus soli is an absurdity, and there is no need for it. Most countries in the world do no have Jus soli, so I dont know what the big deal is.




If we’re going by jus sanguinis, is a child a US citizen at birth, when born abroad to one US citizen parent, but who happens to be a former “anchor baby”? Or that should be an exception as well?


Yes, such a child would be a US citizen by jus sanguinis, just like now.




Out of curiosity, in your opinion, should a child born in the United States to legal permanently residing aliens not be a US citizen by virtue of birth?


No, why should such a child be a citizen? Citizenship should be inherited. If this child wants to be a citizen, let him go through the process of getting citizenship like everyone else. It should not be hard for someone who permanently lives in a country for years, and does not commit crime (children do not). This is like it is done all around the world.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join