Thread: Birthright citizenship will be target of GOP majority

'Facts? We Don't have no facts. We don't need no stinkin FACTS!"

Originally Posted by builditnow

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Originally Posted by Judy

Hurrah for Republicans! And to those who can't read the US Constitution and use deliberate illiteracy to jump over the conditional phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", boo on you. You lose! The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means children of citizens and children of legal immigrants here with unexpired of the US and.or carrying papers to be here at the time of the birth. Since slavery is over and their children have long had citizenship, that provision in the 14th Amendment is really no longer applicable, and I personally think at some point we should amend the 14th Amendment to restrict citizenship to the children of US citizens period. I don't see a reason for automatic citizenship for anyone else at this point in time. The US Supreme Court Case, Kim Wong Ark, that granted US citizenship to him as a child of Chinese immigrants who left the US, never became citizens, hadn't been here for years and took their child with them back to China, who when he became adult wanted to come back as a US citizen changed long standing policy and served no valid purpose whatsoever.

The issue in Wong Kim was the Chinese Exclusionary Act which prevented the parents from becoming citizens. No such policy or condition exists for today's illegal invaders. As you stated Judy, it has no relevance in the matter before us today, which is the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment for purposes it was never intended; erroneously conveying US citizenship to the spawn of those who entered this country in violation of a sovereign nation's established immigration laws.

Only a bamboozler with nefarious intentions could believe such an intentional violation of our sovereignty could result in the conveyance of US citizenship, arguably, the greatest gift on the face of this planet.

Why would the offspring of foreign diplomats specifically be excluded from receiving citizenship when they would have been in this country legally and probably people of good moral character and education? It’s because our founders understood conveying citizenship to the offspring of those parents whose might have loyalties elsewhere would be detrimental, ultimately putting this country in harms way.

Unfortunately, we are now witness to this almost everyday in this country. It happens when anchor babies and illegal invaders protest a 13 year old boy displaying the American flag on his bike while going to school, with the raza Superintendent siding with the invaders until challenged on it. It happens when millions of militant illegal invaders take to our streets, demanding rights and privileges for which only citizens are entitled while having the audacity to waive their beloved rag of mexico. Their behaviors will only become more militant and aggressive as their numbers increase.

In respect to the 14th Amendment, how is it that the offspring of a foreign diplomat is excluded from receiving birthright citizenship, but the spawn of two illegal invaders who breeched our borders in the middle of the night have the rights to receive full citizenship under the 14th Amendment?

If that makes sense to anyone, please explain it to me because I have yet been able to make sense of it.

Thanks NoBueno and Judy for posting this info. I'm keeping a file of all info regarding the 14th Amendment/Anchor Baby issue. I thought I had read here sometime that the parent(s) in Wong Kim case was a LEGAL resident of U.S., tho not citizen. But the open-borders crowd doesn't care about the facts.

Yes...the parents in Wong Kim were in the country legally but could not attain US citizenship because of the Chinese Exclusionary Act. IMHO, Wong Kim is not even controlling case law regarding the illegal invaders of present day because the invaders of today have no legal basis for being here; quite the distinction from Wong Kim, who were here legally (and had no loyalties to the Emperor of China) but not legal citizens.

Here is the link to the case for your files builditnow:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...9_0649_ZS.html

NoBueno - Thanks for link! - great to have the original, official sources. I'm also going to pass along all the info I get to one of my state senators, who is part of the legislative coalition trying to educate the country that we do NOT have to change the constitution to stop the anchor baby fiasco. Though hopefully their researches have already covered most bases.

Even Lou Dobbs just babbled last night on Greta that he is opposed to ending the anchor baby explosion, because he "doesn't want to change the constitution". Traitorous moron.

Birthright citizenship debate far from over

by KTAR.com (November 19th, 2010 @ 11:51am)


The debate over birthright citizenship is not going away any time soon.

Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa tells Fox News "it's something the American people expect to see Congress have a discussion and deliberation on and perhaps move legislation in the next Congress."

He says there's an industry that developed for pregnant non-residents to come into the country to have a baby "to be anchored to that citizenship, to be anchored to American benefits."

He said it's a practice that costs a lot of money, estimating that 340,000 to 370,000 come to the country illegally to have children.

King said he want to a Tucson hospital where he was told a pregnant woman came into the U.S. illegally for a multiple birth, even though the hospital sent people out of the country to train medical staff south of the border so she could have her children there.

"And it cost us $125,000 for those five births and, of course, that's five new American citizens that can then bring their extended families into the United States."

News anchor Bill Hemer asked King if he thought it were possible to be able to get a constitutional amendment passed to stop birthright citizenship.

The congressman said a law needs to be passed first. He said people on the other side would litigate it, infering it would ultimately end up in the courts.

http://ktar.com

November 22, 2010 4:30 PM
Steve King: "Birthright Citizenship" Bill Could be Soon

Posted by Brian Montopoli

65 comments .

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King said in an interview with CBS News today that he is "looking at dropping a bill early in the 112th Congress" to end the practice of giving U.S. citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.

King, who will likely head the immigration subcommittee when the new Congress begins work in January, predicted that hearings on the bill would not be immediate, since there are "other priorities" to be dealt with. He said he expected hearings "in the next couple months" after the legislation is introduced.

The practice of offering citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants in the United States is known as "birthright citizenship," and defenders say it is protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment opens this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

King says that the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that babies born to illegal immigrants do not necessarily have Constitutionally-protected citizenship rights. He also argues that it is important to consider the history behind the amendment, which was adopted in 1868.

"The 14th Amendment and that specific clause was put in place immediately post-Civil War for the purpose of ensuring that babies born to newly freed slaves would be American citizens," he said, adding that it had nothing to do with citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

At left, King discusses the issue on Fox News Friday.

King told CBS News that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause was included at the time to exempt babies born to diplomats and certain Native Americans who were living on reservations, and that the clause can also be applied to children born to illegal immigrants.

The Iowa congressman argues the change is necessary because of an "anchor baby industry" that exists to exploit the law, which he says incentivizes immigrants to enter the United States to have children. King says that between one in six and one in 12 (or between 340,000 and 720,000) babies born in the United States are born to illegal immigrants, who take advantage of the baby's legal status to gain government benefits.

Those on the other side say the number of people who are motivated to come to America to create "anchor babies" is small and argue it could be dealt with by outlawing the practice, not eliminating birthright citizenship.

Eliminating birthright citizenship "would punish the innocent children of undocumented immigrants, which flies in the face of American values," according to Michele Waslin, Senior Policy Analyst at the Immigration Policy Center.

Asked about criticisms that eliminating birthright citizenship goes against the American values of inclusiveness, King said that by critics' arguments "everybody born on the planet should be included" as citizens.

"You have to draw the line somewhere," he said.

As McClatchy reports, Republican Reps. Tom McClintock and Dan Lungren are among those who agree with King on the issue.

Americans are split on birthright citizenship: 49 percent said in an August CBS News poll that the law should be kept as it is, while 47 percent said it should be changed.

King said he believes a law to change the policy should be passed without worrying about potential legal challenges. If the law is ultimately struck down in the courts, King said, he would push for a Constitutional Amendment to address the issue, though he acknowledged "it would be difficult" to get an amendment passed.

If a law ending birthright citizenship passes the House, it would still need to get through the Democrat-led Senate and then be signed into law by President Obama to take effect - an unlikely proposition. King said he views his effort as just one step in a process, comparing his work on birthright citizenship to the six years he spent working to make English Iowa's official language, which took place in 2002.

"I have a perspective about the degree of difficulty, but I think you have to do the right thing," he said.

http://oneoldvet.com/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-5863--0-0.html

From the article above:

Americans are split on birthright citizenship: 49 percent said in an August CBS News poll that the law should be kept as it is, while 47 percent said it should be changed.

This is not what Rasmussen found in June 2010.

58% Say No to Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-201697.html

[quote="TexasBorn"]"...In respect to the 14th Amendment, how is it that the offspring of a foreign diplomat is excluded from receiving birthright citizenship, but the spawn of two illegal invaders who breeched our borders in the middle of the night have the rights to receive full citizenship under the 14th Amendment?... "

Yes, it does make you wonder doesn't it? Those in power make up their own rules. [/quote]

That's the truth of the whole matter... and they need to be held accountable!

"DeeDee Blasé, the founder of Somos Republicans"


I've gone round and round with this B...ch on other forums , she is no repub , she is a mexican communist / anarchist

Related:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 ... enship.php