Bilbray: White House playing games with immigration

Bilbray: White House playing games with immigration
By Molly K. Hooper
Posted: 06/13/09 10:59 PM [ET]

Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) accused the White House on Saturday of playing politics with immigration reform, after President Obama delayed meeting with congressional leaders to discuss the topic this upcoming week.

The longtime anti-illegal-immigration lawmaker questioned the administration’s motives in setting up a bipartisan meeting with members of Congress on comprehensive reform only to exclude key GOP members, on both sides of the dome, from the session that White House officials announced last Friday had to be rescheduled for the second time.

“Do you really want to get a consensus or are you just putting together people that you agree with for a political maneuver?â€

Quote:

---

McCain, a longtime proponent of guest-worker programs and granting amnesty to illegal aliens, joined forces with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and former President George W. Bush to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, but their efforts were stymied by conservative interest groups opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants.

---

And ALIPAC was one of those groups that played a major role in stopping the efforts of Juan McCain and Jorge Bush.

And we will be there when they try it again.

Hey pro-amnesty advocates: Don't think for a second you've got this thing in the bag, just because you have a president in favor, and a Democrat majority in Congress - you had both last time too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by builditnow

Quote:

---

McCain, a longtime proponent of guest-worker programs and granting amnesty to illegal aliens, joined forces with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and former President George W. Bush to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, but their efforts were stymied by conservative interest groups opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants.

---

And ALIPAC was one of those groups that played a major role in stopping the efforts of Juan McCain and Jorge Bush.

And we will be there when they try it again.

Hey pro-amnesty advocates: Don't think for a second you've got this thing in the bag, just because you have a president in favor, and a Democrat majority in Congress - you had both last time too.

---

AND talk radio telling its listeners to make phone calls and dont stop

You will not get amnesty illegal aliens. You must leave the United States because you broke immigration laws. And Democrats you must listen to us, US citizens. You some of you Republicans, do not help the Democrats. Democrats will not get elected next elections.

Obama and Emanuel are too smart to get caught up in the illegal mess. And, I think the Dems up for re-election don't really want to touch this subject either.

We must keep stressing the fact that all we really need is enforcement, as well as remove the anchor baby law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onetrickydude

We must keep stressing the fact that all we really need is enforcement, as well as remove the anchor baby law.

---

Again I reiterate, and someone please, please correct me if I am wrong, but according the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, one is not granted citizenship solely on the basis of being born on American soil, but must also be born to parents who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States of America. I take this to mean that the parents must be citizens either by birth or naturalization.

It simply doesn’t make sense that this common, yet self-serving misinterpretation of the amendment is what was intended when it was drafted.

If I and many other Americans are correct, then no law needs to be written to overturn this, and would in fact lend credence to this despicable misinterpretation and may inadvertently grant citizenship to existing so-called anchor babies.

Someone tell me if I’m mistaken, because I, we, need to get this right. But I’ve got to tell you, I have such alarm bells going off in my gut over this one, and I just can’t ignore them.

[quote]"Patience is wearing thin in the Latino and immigrant communities and President Obama needs to follow through with the commitment he made to more than 10 million Latinos that voted in the last presidential election,â€

melena29 wrote:

Quote:

---

Again I reiterate, and someone please, please correct me if I am wrong, but according the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, one is not granted citizenship solely on the basis of being born on American soil, but must also be born to parents who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States of America. I take this to mean that the parents must be citizens either by birth or naturalization.

---

Melena29 - I have not seen the full text of the 14th amendment. I tried to research it a while ago, and found partial quotes and descriptions.

Is that a direct quote you are citing regarding the parents must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US?

Unfortunately, though the intention of those who added the 14th amendment was likely NEVER to allow the anchor baby re-population of America, I'm assuming the courts must have interpreted it this way at some point.

When the pro-amnesty crowd doesn't like something, they just have the ACLU or LULAC file a lawsuit, and keep appealing until they find a judge with an identity crisis who believes he/she is a legislator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by builditnow

melena29 wrote:

Quote:

---

Again I reiterate, and someone please, please correct me if I am wrong, but according the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, one is not granted citizenship solely on the basis of being born on American soil, but must also be born to parents who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States of America. I take this to mean that the parents must be citizens either by birth or naturalization.

---

Melena29 - I have not seen the full text of the 14th amendment. I tried to research it a while ago, and found partial quotes and descriptions.

Is that a direct quote you are citing regarding the parents must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US?

Unfortunately, though the intention of those who added the 14th amendment was likely NEVER to allow the anchor baby re-population of America, I'm assuming the courts must have interpreted it this way at some point.

When the pro-amnesty crowd doesn't like something, they just have the ACLU or LULAC file a lawsuit, and keep appealing until they find a judge with an identity crisis who believes he/she is a legislator.

---

Check out this link and let me know what you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... nstitution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melena29

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by builditnow

melena29 wrote:

Quote:

---

Again I reiterate, and someone please, please correct me if I am wrong, but according the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, one is not granted citizenship solely on the basis of being born on American soil, but must also be born to parents who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States of America. I take this to mean that the parents must be citizens either by birth or naturalization.

---

Melena29 - I have not seen the full text of the 14th amendment. I tried to research it a while ago, and found partial quotes and descriptions.

Is that a direct quote you are citing regarding the parents must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US?

Unfortunately, though the intention of those who added the 14th amendment was likely NEVER to allow the anchor baby re-population of America, I'm assuming the courts must have interpreted it this way at some point.

When the pro-amnesty crowd doesn't like something, they just have the ACLU or LULAC file a lawsuit, and keep appealing until they find a judge with an identity crisis who believes he/she is a legislator.

---

Check out this link and let me know what you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... nstitution

---

Melena29-

I checked out the link. It is unfortunately really not clear.

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is a bit vague. And the text I read doesn't clarify the definition enough.

This page sites several different cases and opinions which vary on the meaning of the amendment. But I think the main point is definitely the original intent of the 14th amendment was regarding citizenship of African-Americans after the Civil War, to ensure the slaves and their children were considered citizens. It was NEVER meant to allow the re-population of the US with anchor babiies.

If we had a government with any principles and backbone, not concerned only with increasing their own power and votes, the Congress would clarify or ratify or do whatever it is they need to do to stop this outrageous miscarriage of justice, facilitating the illegal invasion of the US by allowing this to continue.

Quote from the text:

Quote:

---

Citizenship Clause
Main article: Citizenship Clause
[/b]The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[12] Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[13] although that has generally been assumed to be the case.[14] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)[15] and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).[16] Nevertheless, some claim the Congress possesses the power to exclude such children from US citizenship by legislation.[13]

---