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: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Oh I see, so it's just going to effect Latinos only eh? Doesn't seem quite legal or justified. Either everyone born in this country is a citizen, or no one born in this country is a citizen.

What do we all have to take the citizenship test? I don't know many natural born Americans who would actually pass that test.


hm.. what on Earth are you talking about? Why Latinos?

The notion that everyone born in a country should be a citizen is absurd for me. There is no logical reason for this. Citizenship should be only inherited, or granted to people who live long enough in a country, and fulfill other conditions according to law. Automatically giving out citizenship just because of such an insignificant detail as a place of birth in not right, IMHO.




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Yeah, but it's not really that strong of a point is it?

Do I agree with everything in the Constitution? No.
Do I believe in the process the Constitution uses? Yes.
We have an amendment process for a reason. Things happen.
And I'm a pretty strict Constitutionalist sir.

Do I think birthright citizenship should be repealed altogether? No.

Do I think we should be allowing illegals into the country? No.
Do I think we should grant amnesty to those here? No.

We should be enforcing our existing laws rather than fundamentally transforming
jurisprudence for what may be a temporary political wind.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 





So this law would only apply to people born AFTER the law is enacted? The challenge is the same then. If a woman has been in the US illegally for 25 years (since being a baby) and already has a child, that child is a citizen, but would any future children she has would not be citizens?


Correct.




I am guessing that when the first child has kids, they would be safe, since the first kid was an "anchor baby" citizen?


Indeed.




BTW, I don't see this law doing anything of consequence towards reducing illegal immigration. Mexico having a stable and growing economy would help reduce illegal immigration, though.


Anchor babies are named so for a reason. When illegal immigrant has a child that is an American citizen, he/she is basicaly safe, and cannot be deported.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Good for those Republicans. This concept should have been the law since the beginning.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


In all fairness VXN, you are much less propaganda effected than many who self identify as being on the right. My point was to point out that some of the Constitutional "purists" who have jumped on the bandwagon, as of late, may not fully understand the very thing you just said... that we have an Amendment process for a reason. Some folks 'round these parts don't see the Constitution as a living document... they tend to think of it as words carved in stone.

Our world has changed drastically since the Framers put pen to paper. What was once an ordeal that involved weeks at sea, to be followed, most likely, by literally having to carve a life out of a wilderness, is now as simple as a few hours on a plane and having enough cash to rent or buy a home. As time, technology, and situations change, so must our perspectives about how to deal with new applications of old ideas.

~Heff
edit on 1/7/11 by Hefficide because: typo



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
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
 



Ms. Durham was born and died as an American citizen and never surrendered her US Citizenship and btw, there is no such thing as a minimum time requirement for residency in the US to retain citizenship. She married Mr. Obama the year Obama was born.

Ms. Dunham's Wikipedia entry confirming she is a natural American citizen as she was born in Kansas in 1942 and Kansas was Admitted as the 33rd State of the Union in 1861 nearly 80 years before she was born.
en.wikipedia.org...

This Barry Soetero nonsense and lies is a combo of both his dad and stepdad. Father is Barack Obama, Sr. and his StepDad's name was Lolo Soetoro. Mr. Soetoro never adopted nor did he ever take paternal custody of Obama. That is where the Birthers got the name "Barry Soetoro" from. All based on lies and distortion of the truth so if anyone here gets a email supporting the Birthers, you have my consent to copy and paste my post after the end quote into the body and send it to them. That will shut them down right quick. I don't care if she was 18 or 48 that means nothing.
edit on 7-1-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Well "Living Document" often refers to the Progressive way of interpreting that phrase. That the Original Intent means nothing, and that the courts can make the Constitution mean what they wish...I completely reject and fervently oppose this view of Constitutional jurisprudence.

If by living document you mean a list of rules for changing the basis of jurisprudence in this country, you're right. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and as such it's processes and Original Intent(to maximize human liberty) should be treated with respect.

Natural Rights matter. I don't want anyone in the government to EVER believe that they give and take rights from the people.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I see, so therefore according to you, despite both of my parents being born in the United States, despite both of their parents being born in the United States, I don't automatically qualify for citizenship being born in this country.

So then what? Will I have to take a citizenship test in order to be a Citizen? What of our lawmakers? Will they then be considered illegals and therefore ineligible for the office they were constitutionally elected to because they haven't passed the citizenship test?

Doesn't this idea completely destroy this country? I mean if every single one of our representatives instantaneously becomes an illegal alien and thus ineligible for the office they hold, doesn't that pretty much destroy our nation completely?

After all you can't inherit something that isn't your parents to bequeath to you.
edit on 1/7/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Oh I see, so it's just going to effect Latinos only eh? Doesn't seem quite legal or justified. Either everyone born in this country is a citizen, or no one born in this country is a citizen.


Are you on crack? You are the one who said that Conservatives are only putting this in place because they hate Spanish speakers.


What do we all have to take the citizenship test? I don't know many natural born Americans who would actually pass that test.


Anyone from January 7, 2011 (as an example) who was previously considered a citizen is a citizen. Anyone born after said date, must have at least one American citizen as a birth parent.

That easy



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn

If by living document you mean a list of rules for changing the basis of jurisprudence in this country, you're right. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and as such it's processes and Original Intent(to maximize human liberty) should be treated with respect.

Natural Rights matter. I don't want anyone in the government to EVER believe that they give and take rights from the people.


This is pretty much what I mean. Adaptability while remaining true to the original intent of the law. Modern applications of the original ideas, as necessary due to advancement.

In regard to the giving/taking of rights... Well sometimes it seems to take a few words scrawled into an Amendment before the Government decides to recognize rights. This state is sad but true. It's about knowing they are accountable rather than empowering them to give or take.

~Heff



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
. . .

This could be a real mess. Why don't they just enforce the laws we have and work on immigration reform?


Because there are loopholes that allow people to game the system. Close the loop holes and enforce, and reform all at the same time



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 



Anyone from January 7, 2011 (as an example) who was previously considered a citizen is a citizen. Anyone born after said date, must have at least one American citizen as a birth parent.


Doesn't actually solve that "Anchor Terror Baby" problem does it? That still means that every child born in this country prior to today's date is a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

Kinda makes this entire argument pointless.
edit on 1/7/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
If by living document you mean a list of rules for changing the basis of jurisprudence in this country, you're right.


Just FEI (for everyone's information) this is what I mean when I say living document.

But these legislators aren't talking about repealing the 14th Amendment. That's just FOX's way of supercharging the issue. I hate it when people ignore me.



Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Because there are loopholes that allow people to game the system. Close the loop holes and enforce, and reform all at the same time


As I have pointed out, this new legislation would be FULL of loopholes.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Here's a good example for me:

When conservatives talk about Constitutional Amendments to restrict the right of gay people to get married-They violate the spirit of the Constitution and intent of our nation altogether.

I like the story of the 18th and 21st Amendments. The 18 takes freedom from the individual, the 21st restores that freedom. Both are still in the Constitution to remind of us our mistakes and the Original Intent of the document...Also the message of what rights are and are not.

Rights are not negotiable.

Rights are inherent to nature(for you atheists) and are the property of God(for the rest of us).

Rights are not subject to the arbitrary interpretations of man, nor are they subject to the arbitrary restriction by governments.

Rights are, whether you're faithful or not, the only sacred Earthly concept. And I HATE IT when we scheme to have each other live in the shackles of our choosing. It's stupid.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Much as it galls me to say so,these Republicans do have a point,however,they should take into consideration the fact the child born under these circumstances is the innocent one.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by nake13
 


Starred for humanitarian justice!

Thank you for considering the children as something more than an abstract! (That's the liberal in me showing through.)


~Heff



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Won't someone think of the children!!


Go cry on Bill Maher's shoulder.


_______________________________________

In all seriousness, children are often political pawns in this country to justify dumb legislation passed off as some sort of "justice". There also seems to be this overall indifference to children and what is actually affecting them in this country...When we focus on whether the happy meal toy is educational and then not focus on whether the schools are educational, we are doomed to completely overlook the source of the problem.

People get sick of the excuse after a while...I know I did..




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





I see, so therefore according to you, despite both of my parents being born in the United States, despite both of their parents being born in the United States, I don't automatically qualify for citizenship being born in this country.


Was at least one of your parents legal citizen, at the time of your birth? Then you should be a citizen, too.




So then what? Will I have to take a citizenship test in order to be a Citizen? What of our lawmakers? Will they then be considered illegals and therefore ineligible for the office they were constitutionally elected to because they haven't passed the citizenship test?


It is a simple concept. Citizenship should be inherited only. I dont see your point, or what are you trying to say.




Doesn't this idea completely destroy this country? I mean if every single one of our representatives instantaneously becomes an illegal alien and thus ineligible for the office they hold, doesn't that pretty much destroy our nation completely?


Allright, I am telling you this again, I hope you will understand, it is not so hard: Nobody would be stripped of their citizenship. The law only changes the way non-citizens can acquire their citizenship. Simple as that.

Destroy the country? What an absurd idea.





After all you can't inherit something that isn't your parents to bequeath to you.


If your parents are not citizens, it makes sense that you will not be one, even if you were born on US soil. Being born on US soil is not what is important, citizenship of parents is what is important.




Doesn't actually solve that "Anchor Terror Baby" problem does it? That still means that every child born in this country prior to today's date is a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. Kinda makes this entire argument pointless.


It means that there will not be more anchor babies.
edit on 7/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Well "Living Document" often refers to the Progressive way of interpreting that phrase. That the Original Intent means nothing, and that the courts can make the Constitution mean what they wish...I completely reject and fervently oppose this view of Constitutional jurisprudence.

If by living document you mean a list of rules for changing the basis of jurisprudence in this country, you're right. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and as such it's processes and Original Intent(to maximize human liberty) should be treated with respect.

Natural Rights matter. I don't want anyone in the government to EVER believe that they give and take rights from the people.


To add upon what you are saying, the term "Living Document" means in short that it is currently active policy and protocol that lives to protect the nation.

To ban "anchor babies" is just another measure to attempt to strip natural and legally born Americans of rights because they are not rich and do not vote GOP! Why is it that everytime the GOP has power they always try and take freedoms away? The Racist GOP is yet again showing it's true colours.
edit on 7-1-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by nake13
 

Thus I can assume that you are pro-life and anti-abortion(aka infanticide); correct? The child is still innocent before being murdered by it's parent.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join