Thread: U.S. Is Last Remaining Developed Nation Giving Birt

U.S. Is Last Remaining Developed Nation Giving Birthright Citizenship To Tourists & Illegal Aliens
By beckr
Created 08/09/2010 - 7:27pm

That's right. We're the laughingstock of the modern world. Only the U.S. hasn't entered the 21st century and gotten rid of a backward policy that values citizenship so lightly that it bestows it on the babies born to visitors to Disney World as well as to all foreign citizens who violate our immigration laws.


FOLLOWING ARE ALL THE DEVELOPED NATIONS OF THE WORLD THAT OFFER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO THE BABIES OF TOURISTS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS:

• United States


That's right, every other modern Developed nation in the world has gotten rid of birthright citizenship policies.


Yet, most of U.S. news media and politicians the last two weeks have ridiculed the comments by some other politicians that it is time for the U.S. to put an end to birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal aliens.
Folks, the U.S. stands alone.


ACTION: Send faxes to your Members of Congress and urge them to immediately sponsor legislation to change the law that currently grants birthright citizenship.


There used to be all kinds of Developed countries that gave away their citizenship as freely as we do in the U.S. But one by one they all have recognized the folly of that policy.


SOME MODERN COUNTRIES THAT RECENTLY ENDED THEIR BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP POLICY
• Canada was the last non-U.S. holdout. Illegal aliens stopped getting citizenship for their babies in 2009.
• Australia's birthright citizenship requirements are much more stringent than those of H.R. 1868 and took effect in 2007.
• New Zealand repealed in 2006
• Ireland repealed in 2005
• France repealed in 1993
• India repealed in 1987
• United Kingdom repealed in 1983
• Portugal repealed in 1981


The United States is the laughing stock of the modern world. Only the U.S. values its citizenship so lowly as to distribute it promiscuously to the off-spring of foreign citizens visiting Disney World on tourist visas and to foreign citizens who have violated their promises on their visitor, work and student visas to stay illegally in the country, as well as to those who sneak across our borders.


Notice we are asking to change the "law" and not the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

H.R. 1868 by Rep. Gary Miller of California would merely change the federalaw (passed by Congress) that currently requires giving U.S. citizenship to these babies.

We and many Constitutional scholars do not believe a Constitutional Amendment is required. But we also know that as soon as H.R. 1868 is passed there will be suits taking it to the Supreme Court. We believe the Supremes are likely to agree with us that H.R. 1868 does not violate any part of the Constitution.


Go to our "5 Great Immigration-Reduction Bills" page to see all the Members of Congress who are attempting to move the U.S. into the 21st century by co-sponsoring H.R. 1868.

Let's help the United States get in step with the rest of the modern world.
ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA



Published on NumbersUSA (http://www.numbersusa.com/content)

There is a lot to be said about a nation who refuses to seal it's own borders while being invaded, it's public purse robbed, it's cupboards bare, and it's elected officials standing by as mere spectators.

The United States needs to STOP this and deport these illegals coming here just to give birth. The time has come to STOP this action

And if we don't get it fixed soon we run the risk of the ethnic lobby undoing any forward movement on that, too. Plus the other immigration reforms that we need.

Originally Posted by HAPPY2BME

There is a lot to be said about a nation who refuses to seal it's own borders while being invaded, it's public purse robbed, it's cupboards bare, and it's elected officials standing by as mere spectators.

During the Bush reign I often asked what it took for 535 Representatives of this once great Republic to so thoroughly sell their soul to this evil lie which continues to thrive under the guise of promoting diversity. Today I still do not know the answer.

We're the laughingstock of the modern world.

Have to agree with that.

Very informative read.

What is more sickening is watching Jon Stewart tonight. He has a thing on the 14th Amend tonight.

http://www.slate.com/id/2262791

Babies 'R' Us
Challenges to birthright citizenship are just a distraction.
By Bill Ong Hing
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2010, at 1:08 PM ET

Sen. Lindsey Graham Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham last week proposed amending the Constitution to change the law that grants citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the United States. More specifically, he would change the language of the 14th Amendment to bar birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented parents. Graham's Senate Republican colleagues John McCain, Jon Kyl, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all agree that hearings should be held on the proposal. This effort is just the latest evidence of how insincere they are about supporting a meaningful attempt at immigration reform, opting instead for pointless political chest-thumping.

They cannot be serious about amending the 14th Amendment (which may explain why key Republicans are already backing away from the proposal). The Constitution can only be amended in two ways: The first is for a bill to pass both houses of Congress, by a two-thirds majority. Good luck with that, especially in this age of partisan politics. Once the bill has passed both houses, then it's on to the states for approval. Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment that must be ratified by three-fourths of states. Again, good luck.

The second method requires that a constitutional convention be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the states. Any amendments adopted would then be sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures. This route has never been taken, and there is concern in political science circles about just how such a convention would even be convened and the can of political worms it could open.

The last serious effort at a constitutional amendment was the Equal Rights Amendment. The proposal, intended to guarantee that equal rights under any federal, state, or local law could not be denied on account of gender, was passed by both houses of Congress in 1972. But only 35 of the required 38 states ratified the change. Thus, the amendment failed even after a controversial extension of the ratification period.

I seriously doubt that the American public has either the interest in, or the stomach for, a long, drawn-out constitutional debate about birthright citizenship. Polls show the public favors the anti-immigrant Arizona SB1070 but overwhelmingly supports legalization for undocumented immigrants as well. Apparently, the majority of the public is open to having a real conversation about immigration policy and solving the undocumented immigration challenge. This attack on U.S. born children—or, per the ugly moniker, "anchor babies"? That's just a distraction.

Challenges to birthright citizenship are not new. They emerge in predictable historical cycles. Like other attention-grabbing anti-immigrant initiatives, they may even spark debate, but not the kind of honest discussion necessary for immigration reform. Proposals couched in enforcement-only, anti-immigrant sentiment naturally encounter reflexive push-back from immigrant rights supporters advocating legalization. That's why the polarized battle over closing the border and increasing enforcement, versus enacting a legalization program, leaves little room for meaningful conversation. For any real change to come about, we must talk about the needs of employers and the contributions of immigrants. The vitriol about pregnant foreigners who sneak across our borders prevents us from getting an accurate picture of who most immigrants are—both documented and undocumented—and why they continue to arrive instead of trying to achieve their dreams at home. For example, our instincts tell us that reducing the flow across the southern border will require the expansion of the economy and job growth in Mexico. Yet formulating a plan to work with Mexico on its economy has never been part of the discussion.

The real problem with the enforcement-only approach to the undocumented immigration challenge is obvious: It's pretty much all we've been doing for the past decade, and what's the result been? Billions of dollars later, we are left with daily deaths at the border, as an enforcement regime funnels the continuous flow of migrants through the most treacherous terrain and ICE raids. Our borders separate loved ones as detention facilities bulge to the breaking point.

Congress is currently sitting on Senate and House proposals for reform that attempt to strike a principled balance between greater enforcement and a fair way to adjust the status for the 10 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the country. However, even immigrant rights advocates must acknowledge that legalization will not solve undocumented migration permanently. An expansion of visas will certainly help, but if the package does not include at least the first steps toward helping Mexico improve its economy and infrastructure, undocumented Mexican migration will continue, and the tension over undocumented migration will resurface down the road.

There is more to this article

• India repealed in 1987

Interesting fact about India and the USA. India does not allow dual citizenship, the USA does not allow the parents of anchor babies to renounce the child's citizenship. So if Indian H1b workers have a baby here, it is automatically a US citizen, when they move back to India they cannot renounce the babies citizenship in order for it to be an Indian citizen!! The child has to wait until age 18 and do it themselves!! Tyrannical freaking corrupt US government forces foreigners to be US citizens who don't want it!!!

That is another good reason to end the anchor baby scam.

H.R. 1868 by Rep. Gary Miller of California would merely change the federalaw (passed by Congress) that currently requires giving U.S. citizenship to these babies.

We and many Constitutional scholars do not believe a Constitutional Amendment is required. But we also know that as soon as H.R. 1868 is passed there will be suits taking it to the Supreme Court. We believe the Supremes are likely to agree with us that H.R. 1868 does not violate any part of the Constitution.

I don't share Roy's optimism, all those past laws bestoyed citizenship on some group, they did not take it away. I would say with our current court the chances are 50/50. Also with Obama in power it would take a 2/3rds vote to pass this bill, I might be wrong but don't see it passing unless we have a different President.

Originally Posted by Rai7965

U.S. Is Last Remaining Developed Nation Giving Birthright Citizenship To Tourists & Illegal Aliens
By beckr
Created 08/09/2010 - 7:27pm

That's right. We're the laughingstock of the modern world. Only the U.S. hasn't entered the 21st century and gotten rid of a backward policy that values citizenship so lightly that it bestows it on the babies born to visitors to Disney World as well as to all foreign citizens who violate our immigration laws.


FOLLOWING ARE ALL THE DEVELOPED NATIONS OF THE WORLD THAT OFFER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO THE BABIES OF TOURISTS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS:

• United States


That's right, every other modern Developed nation in the world has gotten rid of birthright citizenship policies.


Yet, most of U.S. news media and politicians the last two weeks have ridiculed the comments by some other politicians that it is time for the U.S. to put an end to birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal aliens.
Folks, the U.S. stands alone.


ACTION: Send faxes to your Members of Congress and urge them to immediately sponsor legislation to change the law that currently grants birthright citizenship.


There used to be all kinds of Developed countries that gave away their citizenship as freely as we do in the U.S. But one by one they all have recognized the folly of that policy.


SOME MODERN COUNTRIES THAT RECENTLY ENDED THEIR BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP POLICY
• Canada was the last non-U.S. holdout. Illegal aliens stopped getting citizenship for their babies in 2009.
• Australia's birthright citizenship requirements are much more stringent than those of H.R. 1868 and took effect in 2007.
• New Zealand repealed in 2006
• Ireland repealed in 2005
• France repealed in 1993
• India repealed in 1987
• United Kingdom repealed in 1983
• Portugal repealed in 1981


The United States is the laughing stock of the modern world. Only the U.S. values its citizenship so lowly as to distribute it promiscuously to the off-spring of foreign citizens visiting Disney World on tourist visas and to foreign citizens who have violated their promises on their visitor, work and student visas to stay illegally in the country, as well as to those who sneak across our borders.


Notice we are asking to change the "law" and not the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

H.R. 1868 by Rep. Gary Miller of California would merely change the federalaw (passed by Congress) that currently requires giving U.S. citizenship to these babies.

We and many Constitutional scholars do not believe a Constitutional Amendment is required. But we also know that as soon as H.R. 1868 is passed there will be suits taking it to the Supreme Court. We believe the Supremes are likely to agree with us that H.R. 1868 does not violate any part of the Constitution.


Go to our "5 Great Immigration-Reduction Bills" page to see all the Members of Congress who are attempting to move the U.S. into the 21st century by co-sponsoring H.R. 1868.

Let's help the United States get in step with the rest of the modern world.
ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA



Published on NumbersUSA (http://www.numbersusa.com/content)

THANK GOD SOMEONE IS FINALLY BEATING THIS DRUM ! ! !