House Republicans Introduce Bill to Repeal Birthright Citizenship Amendment

Originally posted by Nephalim

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Nephalim

 

This, I want to know how that effects current citizens and children they may have in the future as well as the past, if these idiots arent careful, we will all be "illegal immigrants."

No current citizen will be affected in any way, and the same applies to children of citizens. The law is not retroactive.

Allow the Tea Baggers to write and pen the law and watch every person who is not in lock step with them be denied their citizenship,

cant forget terrorists! never forget that.. apparently, if we dont agree with a law, obviously, we must be terrorists.

ok so just for conversations sake, if this passes, what do you do with all of the immigrant families here now? Roundem up and shippem out? Wait that Sounds SS'ish to me. Do they grant them citizenship by default maybe?

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

Are they breaking the law?

What do you do with law breakers?

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


That's terrible melon, you're in Texas, you know how many hispanics are here. 25 million sum-odd people in Texas, how much of that population is illegal? I'd doubt that confinement is even an option. I know back in 05 the estimate was about 1.5 million. Nationally, about 11 million in 08

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

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.

You are correct (except for the 10-year requirement), however a foreign mom is less likely to be deported on the basis of having USC babies. And if you have ever spent time on the SW Border, it would be clear to you that it is not just employment that attacts illegals. They do come here to have babies.

The US is one of the last countries who continue to recognize jus soli. I think it's time to examine this more closely. Jus sangri should remain in place in the meantime.

Having worked with many illegals in the past, I'll tell you what they told me. They come here and have a baby, lie and say they are a one income household even though their boyfriends live with them and together they make well above the poverty limit. They collect welfare and have cheap housing, medical etc. Whenever I tried telling them that there are people who really need welfare and that what they are doing is stealing, they say well America is stupid. Sigh...Then they each had 3 kids and wanted more. Who pays for this?

They took a law that was supposed to be for x slaves and manipulated it for self serving purposes. Illegals who have been here for many years have had more than enough time to go through proper channels to become legal and chose not to. How do you think that makes someone feel who has come here with respect and done everything the right and legal way? Illegals and their children also take jobs away from citizens and not just the jobs that Americans won't do. They are not tested for diseases, have no background checks etc.

It is long over due that something be done about this.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
He was born in Hawaii like I've just got finished mentioning. His mom is A LEGAL UNITED STATES CITIZEN AND NEVER RELINQUISHED HER OR OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP. This is the only thing that matters.

Rode the short bus didn't you? It's ok, lots of people have difficulty with reading comprehension. Keep practicing, and practice efffectively, and you can improve. You may never achieve what can be called "normal" but any improvement is better than none, right?

Oh, and re-read my post a few times and then re-read yours. See the disconnect?

reply to post by Nephalim


Does it matter? Also Nephalim, to answer your earlier question on if we deport all the illegal immigrants....YES...illegal is illegal. You wouldnt allow someone to continue to stay in your house if you worked everyday and they did nothing but have children and eat your food and call upon you for healthcare; you would get tired of them leaching and using you and kick them out if you had a spine. Sometimes tough decisions must be made, but I, for one am tired of being leached upon by illegals here in the US. Pack em up, ship em on out. Dont give citizenship for "anchor babies" to either the child or the illegals. Illegal aliens obviously know the risks they take to get into the US and what they are doing; a message needs to be sent that the US will no longer tolerate being trampled on.

Originally posted by NAeagle89
reply to post by Nephalim

 

Does it matter? Also Nephalim, to answer your earlier question on if we deport all the illegal immigrants....YES...illegal is illegal. (Edited for wordy useless info) but I, for one am tired of being leached upon by illegals here in the US. Pack em up, ship em on out. Dont give citizenship for "anchor babies" to either the child or the illegals. Illegal aliens obviously know the risks they take to get into the US and what they are doing; a message needs to be sent that the US will no longer tolerate being trampled on.

Bah don't preach to the choir, I'm just asking what we are supposed to do with all of the immigrants that are here now.
Things we know:
• "Shipping them out" costs tons of money already only for them to turn around come back in.
• Welfare in most states where illegal immigration is highest won't be tolerated by the taxpayer any longer.
• The prison system is overcrowded as it is, which is basically what your advocating, put them in jail, clothe them, feed them and pay tax dollars for it, it's the same boat.
• We build a wall and they just tunnel under or go around.
• The border patrol is out manned

I live on a border state, trust me, telling immigrants that they wont have citizenship is more of the same, it's pissing in the wind. They don't care, they don't have it now anyway.

Forgive me for posting without doing more reading of the thread.

What I'm thinking is that this could somehow counter the fact that Obama's records make him an illegal "plant" in the highest public office.

In long-term aspects, this will prevent a controversial candidate's chances of attaining the highest public office.
And IF this bill becomes law while Obama's in office, (I figure anyhow) it can be used as a tool to remove him legally?

OK. back to reading. Be nice.

I come late to the party, but there was something that was stated that, unless I missed it, hasn’t been rectified.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
McCain was born in a military base, which is considered American soil.

This is a misconception, but military bases, and embassies, enjoy extraterritorial status — they are, generally, exempt from the jurisdiction of local law — but are not sovereign territory. There is no birthright citizenship for people born on these facilities.

The status and privileges of military bases and personnel are dependent on the terms of the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) with the host nation, while diplomatic missions — embassies, consulates, etc — derive their privileges primarily from international treaties, namely the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

From the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 1100 (p. 5):

Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America.

The statement that one is a US citizen solely due to birth in a US military base is especially ironic coming from someone who is ranting about children of illegal immigrants having birthright US citizenship. If that was so, foreign nationals didn’t even have to bother entering the United States as they could just have their kids on the premises of a US military base or embassy in their own country. You didn’t think that one through did you?

Reply to post by Nephalim

So if my family, extended family, and I squat in your house for 10 years, and you find out about it, you will just let us stay in your house?

Did the people break a law or not?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by centurion1211

 

I'm missing your dig entirely. Are you trying to make fun of my historical accuracy or are you trying to downplay the tendency of the extreme right towards intolerance of others?

Either way, methinks thou dost protest too much.

~Heff

Extreme right's intolerance of others????

Instead, the left - you included - need to check the mirror to see who really is intolerant of others - intolerant of anyone else who dares to have a different political ideology than a lib is constantly demeaned as not just wrong, but also stupid.

Liberal hypocrisy in action for all to see.



As far as your "historical accuracy" goes, I really don't know what you are referring to.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Actually, birth on a military base outside the US in and of itself does not satisfy the requirements as they relate to the 14th Amendment. According to the U.S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual:

c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on
U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad
and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of
the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A
child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the
United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of
birth.

But the McCain/Obama examples are moot points: Both McCain and Obama were "born or naturalized in the United States," and both were "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States thereof," so both "are citizens of the United States;" and what's being discussed now affects the citizenship of unborn children.

So I'm wondering...

How would the government deal with the citizenship of an abandoned baby?

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


if I owned a rent house and you were homeless? Sure. But..you know, you break it you buy it my friend. How does that compare though? You're american.

My point is this lemon, if you put them in jail, your just shifting where they are, and shifting your money, not cutting your bill and your not stopping the rest from coming over like that. What you'll have is well fed mexicans dropped off at the border with time served, free to come on back when they get hungry again and they do, they always do.

Reply to post by Nephalim

If the laws were enforced, this would not be a problem.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


So, instead of enforcing the existing law, the GOP solution is to invalidate everyone's citizenship en masse? Yea, the Conservative "War on Liberty" just marches on with it's ground troops clapping and cheering the entire way.

reply to post by sjrily

You missed my post

Originally posted by sjrily
So I'm wondering...
How would the government deal with the citizenship of an abandoned baby?

8 USC 1401(f)—

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (...)

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States

reply to post by NAeagle89
You seem to be talking oblivious of existing law.

First, the child has no choice where he’s born, nor does he have any influence over the illegal status of his parents. So why should the child be punished by not having US citizenship, especially in light of the existing jus soli standard?

Further, the parents don’t get US citizenship automatically and just because their child is born in the US. Only when the child reaches adulthood can he sponsor his family members, and they’d have to go, legally, through the process.

Currently, when the parents are deported, unless there are legal-immigrant relatives willing to take the child, the child — even though is a US citizen — gets deported with the parents as well. If the child gets deported and later wants to return to the US he can do so, like any other US citizen.

There is nothing wrong with the 14th Amendment, Supreme Court jurisprudence, or existing nationality, citizenship or immigration law. What is faulty is the enforcement of existing law and that is something this bill by Republicans doesn’t address at all. But it’s always something that motivates their base, so why not keep milking that cow, right?

Originally posted by Night Star
How do you think that makes someone feel who has come here with respect and done everything the right and legal way? Illegals and their children also take jobs away from citizens and not just the jobs that Americans won't do. They are not tested for diseases, have no background checks etc.

You are exactly right, I adoped an orphan girl from China, had to pay thousands of dollars, fill out stacks of forms, pass an FBI background check, and medical tests for all of us. Then at her preschool my daughter contracted tuberculosis from a Mexican illegal alien kid. Let me tell you man that makes me totally hot, I loath any politician who supports illegal immigration, I think they are traitors.

For all of you who don't think anchor babies are a problem, go the aztlan.net and mexica-movement.org websites. This is what anchor babies want to create, a state where you or your children will live as an indentured servant with no property or rights.