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: 9
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



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


Yep.

And as far as ripping the Constitution apart, I'm just waiting for the 'amendment' that requires "Voter Competency Testing."

Just around the corner, I'm thinkin'.




posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


This policy has been proposed by both sides for a long time. The concept didn't go away..

It's a matter of shrinking the already pathetic contributing voter pool.
What apathy doesn't do draconian rules will.

edit on 8-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by whatukno
 



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


Yep.



Nope.

It affects only anchor babies. If someone has at least one parent a citizen, citizenship is inherited.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
reply to post by ufoyoshi
 

The United States is a nation founded based on principles of equality, fairness and opportunity, where every child — regardless of background — is born with the same rights as every other US citizen.

If people no longer believe this, or the legislature wishes to add exceptions to this principle, then it has to do so through a Constitutional amendment and not pretend the 14th Amendment doesn’t say what it says.


Why should children born of illegal immigrants get the same rights as every other US citizen? It devalues the value of citizenship to allow this.

Giving illegal immigrants ANY rights is ridiculous. You based your life on the lie of illegal immigration, you need to be deported, as per what happens in ANY other country, regardless of how old you were when you arrived, if you are in college, if you are sick, etc etc etc. No exceptions, no excuses, period.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by whatukno
 



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


Yep.



Nope.

It affects only anchor babies. If someone has at least one parent a citizen, citizenship is inherited.


I'd lose my citizenship, I was born here, but my parents weren't and never became US citizens. ...so obviously and btw, I wasn't an "anchor baby."



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Jeez.

I want links, please. Haven't kept up with the issue, need briefing.



S& :UP: btw.
edit on 8/1/11 by soficrow because: to add S&



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Ladies and gentleman, as inconvenient as this may be for many of you, the 14th Amendment actually was NOT intended for everyone born in the US. It was twisted by many and made to seem like it said that when in actuality at the time of its passing that was expressedly not the intention. The intention was to provide citizenship and rights for slaves and former slaves.


After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment (overturning, in part, Dred Scott v. Sandford, which said that no black could be a U.S. citizen) clarified the conditions of citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside."

Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."

Source

During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

It may be inconvenient for many of you, but the truth is what it is. The 14th amendment was never intended to give citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. In my opinion, if this is to be extended to the children of illegal immigrants, there needs to be another constitutional amendment.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Giving illegal immigrants ANY rights is ridiculous. You based your life on the lie of illegal immigration, you need to be deported, as per what happens in ANY other country, regardless of how old you were when you arrived, if you are in college, if you are sick, etc etc etc. No exceptions, no excuses, period.

We have laws in place to deal with illegal immigration, including deportation of children of illegal immigrants, even if the children are US citizens, as I’ve described here.

But birthright citizenship and immigration are two distinct issues. The situations you are ranting about occur, not because of a lack of laws or laxed laws, but because there is no, or poor, enforcement of existing laws.

And this bill does nothing to address that.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Democrats started this and the Progressive movement strengthened the practice:
en.wikipedia.org...

acks were still elected to local offices in the 1880s, but the establishment Democrats were passing laws to make voter registration and elections more restrictive, with the result that participation by most blacks and many poor whites began to decrease. Starting with Mississippi in 1890, through 1910 the former Confederate states passed new constitutions or amendments that effectively disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites through a combination of poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, and residency and record-keeping requirements. Grandfather clauses temporarily permitted some illiterate whites to vote. Voter turnout dropped drastically through the South as a result of such measures.
Denied the ability to vote, blacks and poor whites could neither serve on juries nor in local office. They could not influence the state legislatures, and their interests were overlooked. While public schools had been established by Reconstruction legislatures, those for black children were consistently underfunded, even when considered within the strained finances of the South. The decreasing price of cotton kept the agricultural economy at a low.


Republicans:
Turns out it's only a recent thing and only among small enclaves of republicans.

Historically Republicans have stood against these things...But they've since been taken over by Theodore Roosevelt's Progressives and have become Neo-Cons.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 





I'd lose my citizenship, I was born here, but my parents weren't and never became US citizens. ...so obviously and btw, I wasn't an "anchor baby."


Nobody would lose citizenship, including you. The law is not retroactive, so if you already are a citizen, the law does not concern you (even if both your parents are not citizens).

It would only change the way citizenship is granted, so that this absurd way of acquiring citizenship would no longer be possible.
edit on 8/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127
It may be inconvenient for many of you, but the truth is what it is. The 14th amendment was never intended to give citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

The language should have been more specific then. If the legislature enacted a law, or approved a Constitutional amendment, saying something not in conformity with the legislature’s intent, then the legislature is at fault for not having written it appropriately.

Your quote of Sen. Trumbull’s statement that jurisdiction meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” is illustrative that, if indeed this was their intent, the language of the amendment is then incorrect, or at least flawed, because jurisdiction doesn’t mean allegiance.

Non-citizens, even if legally, in the United States don’t owe allegiance to the United States, but are under the jurisdiction of the United States, as in they have to obey US law. Jurisdiction and allegiance are two different things.

If the legislature meant jurisdiction and allegiance then they should have written as such.



In my opinion, if this is to be extended to the children of illegal immigrants, there needs to be another constitutional amendment.

But this is extended to illegal immigrants. Currently, children of illegal immigrants are granted US citizenship at birth, that’s in fact why there’s so much debate over the issue of birthright citizenship.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I'm not talking about the old Jim Crow laws - rather, the 2004 movement to establish "Voter Competency Testing."

...I don't really care which party started it - the two parties have both been couped and re-couped so many times that none of it means anything any more..



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Honestly, I suppose it doesn't seem to matter anymore...

Both parties would benefit greatly from this kind of disenfranchisement...If there were ever a reason to fear it's implementation.

Just look at all those powers Obama kept after Bush finally left.
edit on 8-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by prexparte
 




I believe hispanics are a infestation to america and our economy.
^----What you said.

Oh?

Hispanics are an infestation to America, huh? Yes...You know what? You're right we are.



I hope he meant illegals and not hispanic. Cubans have been a great example for legal immigration. Most of them have come here and quietly begun to prosper or at least get by. Sometimes I do get annoyed that I can drive for blocks in parts of Miami and not hear English spoken or see a sign written in English but a great Cuban meal usually fixes that problem.

If you live in south Florida and have a problem with all Hispanics, legal or illegal, then you have a real problem on your hands.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
Why did you truncate my quote? To distort the full meaning of what I wrote? Here’s what I wrote:

So why should the child be punished by not having US citizenship, especially in light of the existing jus soli standard?

The part you omitted is important because it points out that it’s already the practice to afford US citizenship to anyone (except children of diplomats) born in the United States. It’s in light of this that doing what you advocated for — denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants — would be a punishment, and not in some more general context of “not being born American” as you tried to imply.

Currently policy is totally unimportant since the majority of Americans want it changed. Slavery used to be US policy, should we have left it in place forever? Also illegal alien babies could still become US citizens, through the legal immigration process. There is no "punishment".



In any case, my post merely reflects Supreme Court jurisprudence, namely the principles that “by the Fourteenth Amendment, the powers of the states in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no state can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law.” (Caldwell v. Texas, 1891)

An extremely relevant opinion to these matters is the one from Plyler v. Doe (1982)


Both these cases are inapplicable since they did not deal with the citizenship of illegal alien babies. No Supreme Court case ever has.
edit on 9-1-2011 by TimBrummer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
We have laws in place to deal with illegal immigration, including deportation of children of illegal immigrants, even if the children are US citizens, as I’ve described here.

So to eliminate anchor babies you support a dragnet for all illegal aliens with the goal of deporting them all next month? That is a more reasonable solution to eliminating anchor babies than the introduced legislation?



But birthright citizenship and immigration are two distinct issues. The situations you are ranting about occur, not because of a lack of laws or laxed laws, but because there is no, or poor, enforcement of existing laws.


Even if the immigration laws could be 100% enforced (which they cannot), what about the approximatey 100,000 automatic US citizens born to legal foreign visitors and temporary guest workers every year? As international travel increases that number will only increase. Google "Birth in the USA" to see what I am talking about.

And this bill does nothing to address that.

Their intent is to include it with an enforcement bill. It will also make enforcement easier since the open borders crowd can no longer say "deportation breaks up families" (illegal parents sometimes leave their anchor baby here with relatives).


edit on 9-1-2011 by TimBrummer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
I'd lose my citizenship, I was born here, but my parents weren't and never became US citizens. ...so obviously and btw, I wasn't an "anchor baby."


Past versions of this proposed law also kept birthright citizenship for legal immigration children, I think it was mis reported this time. But I do have a question for you, are you a sole US citizen or do you have dual citizenship?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TimBrummer
Currently policy is totally unimportant (...)

It was important to the context of my statement, that’s the way you should have read it.


Both these cases are inapplicable since they did not deal with the citizenship of illegal alien babies. No Supreme Court case ever has.

No they don’t, but the Court’s opinion of the 14th Amendment vis-a-vis children of illegal immigrants is clearly relevant, and that’s what I said in my post was it not?


So to eliminate anchor babies you support a dragnet for all illegal aliens (...)

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I said no such thing and I believe my comments regarding existing law are clear enough for anyone to understand.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
If the legislature meant jurisdiction and allegiance then they should have written as such.


They DID write it that way, subject in "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is used in the citizenship sense, defined as "a person who owes allegiance to a government and lives under its protection". The Senators confirmed this in their debate.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TimBrummer
 


That was past versions, not relevant to current versions. Anyone know what's in this? Anyone care to research and assure the rest of us that this just won't strip everyone of their citizenship, thus opening up a reason for TPTB to enslave us all?




top topics



 
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join