Thread: Vitter seeks limits to citizenship, congressional terms thro

Vitter seeks limits to citizenship, congressional terms through constitutional amendments

By Pete Kasperowicz - 01/27/11 03:26 PM ET

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) is seeking not one but two amendments to the Constitution. One would deny U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal aliens, and the other would impose term limits on House and Senate members.

S. J.Res. 2 would change the Constitution to say that a child born in the U.S. "shall not be a citizen of the United States" unless at least one parent is a legal citizen, legal alien, active member of the U.S. armed forces or naturalized legal citizen.

"For too long, our nation has seen an influx of illegal aliens entering our country at an escalating rate, and chain migration is a major contributor to this rapid increase — which is only compounded when the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are granted automatic citizenship," said Vitter. "Closing this loophole will not prevent them from becoming citizens, but will ensure that they have to go through the same process as anyone else who wants to become an American citizen."

Vitter and co-sponsor Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said they do not believe the 14th Amendment confers U.S. citizenship onto children of illegal aliens, and that their language would clarify that it does not.

Vitter's other proposal, S. J.Res. 1, would prevent members of Congress from holding their office for more than 12 years. Specifically, it would prevent representatives from running for the House if they have already served six terms, including terms in which they filled a vacancy for more than one year.

Similarly, it would print senators from running for the Senate if they have served more than two terms, which includes vacancy terms in which they held the seat for three years or more.

Softening the blow for current members, the proposal would not count terms of office that begin before the amendment is ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

http://oneoldvet.com/

http://thehill.com

He has my vote!

Rite-on

Absolutely right!!!!!

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-6033--0-0.html

Vitter is a good guy

AZ now trying to pass birthright citizenship law -- GO Arizona!
(this got a little long)

Going to be another federal lawsuit? -- more costs

Of course any enforcement is going to get rebuttal from pro-illegal liberals and surely Republicans are going to get the attempted false "mean-spirited anti-immigrant baby hater" slander....

Then you'll hear the race-linked monlithic voting bloc threat of the "Hispanic vote" ---- this is where pro-amnesty Bill O'Reilly went the other night --- that will continue to be hung over Repubs heads --meanwhile Hispanics make up only approx. 15% of the Voting populous and millions of legal Hispanic immigrants oppose illegal immigration and want enforcement too

--- see Mr. O'Reilly is such an establishment upholder (which is why you get this wishy washy compromise response from him that --well "Obamism isn't all that bad"-- like the other RINOS) in that he fears turmoil in "rocking the boat" because such "chaos" might harm the establishment -- but if the establishment is anti-america (decline such as Chamber of Commerce helping illegal Aliens or sending U.S. jobs overseas) then the establishment's actions must be rejected by the American People so that the U.S. is improved.

So the U.S. can either bleed profusely to death or the U.S. can bleed a slow death --- by doing half-hearted compromises that continues to erode principles. There is going to be a Border with immigration laws - hence a U.S. country -- or as some wish -- there will be essentially no Border and hence no U.S. country.

---here's a case for O'Reilly -- It was a year ago that O'Reilly supported the rise up of its People (pro-democracy groups) to overthrow the Iranian gov't -- to fight for freedom against government control --- well it becomes the same thing for any Peoples that are oppressed by bad governance -- that is the establishment harming the U.S. country and its Citizens liberties and its livelihood

---O'Reilly and others make the claim that the conundrum of this problem is of course --- what to do with the 12-20 million illegal Aliens here -- as O'Reilly and others like Gingrich, McCain like to massage conservatives wants to secure the Border (with National Guard) by stating he is "all for securing the Border". That somehow you can't move the 12-20 million without upsetting the system or "establishment".

(So again -- you get this answer that we did in 1986 and it is failure and it is the final act of violation of the invasion success against Americans --- the "Final One Time Only Amnesty Deal" --this is what O'Reilly and his ilk propose because these illegal Aliens are just "good honest workers"--- but see illegal Aliens get the amnesty right up front while Americans just get the "promises" of enforcement or "promise" of actually stopping the Border intrusion (which is what comprehensive imigration reform will be -- just another promise of the Fed gov. that "they will do a better job"). So then you get the trade off -- how much Border enforcement is 'good enough' to then get an amnesty??

As far as Border enforcement -- crossing that Border should be made as hard as possible -- any and all impediments to get in the way of or block illegal Aliens should be used. More so there has to be human patrol to do the stopping - Troops on the Border -- no amount of electronic surveillance or drones is going to stop it. The fence should be put up, the water stations removed and I would also propose digging trap-door pits deep enough with cushions at the bottom to not harm the illegal Alien. Americans want the ho-hum single file walking into the U.S. like its a holiday field trip stopped. That single file walking in needs to be deterred in the mindset and intent of the illegal Alien.

An Amnesty is wrong on multiple levels in that it is an irreplaceable crime -- it is invasion and property has been stolen. Also an amnesty will in fact give the green-light to new illegal Aliens -- where they can say --see "our invasion tactic works" --- that is why it is wrong -- and also on the corporate side of this -- it is the illegal employers profiteering at the expense of American society -- that throws off all the crime, wage-suppression and cost onto the American People, U.S. laws and legal Immigrants.

See this is the exact strategy and tactic of invasion that illegal Aliens (and Mexico for that matter) have utilized -- the numbers game -- "well there are just so many of us illegal Aliens on U.S. soil there is nothing you can do but give us what we want" -- that "we invaders are going to impose our will on the U.S." So, it should not be said by O'Reilly and others --"what the heck, just give them the amnesty"

NOPE -- enough is enough and the simple answer is Enforcement. Gradual steady enforcement. Illegal immigration is to be deterred NOT welcomed. Kudos to Alipac and William Gheen to move the States into action. Lets impact our States!

Thereby stopping U.S. citizenship for illegal Alien anchor babies is exactly right. The healthcare expense for this illegal incentive is massive (why California is drowning so hard in debt) not to mention just drives senseless overpopulation.

The argument of the 14th Amendment should be made in the words "the jurisdiction thereof" --- an illegal Alien is not in the jurisdiction of the State because the illegal Alien is a foreign entity or a foreign National that has no legal ground or connection to the legal State to make its case. The illegal Alien has only the applicable U.S. laws of immigration that requires deportation.

Why do we have to have an amendment which we all know doesn't have an iceburg's chance to pass? I heard that all Congress needs to do is clarify the language of the amendment. For example, what, exactly, does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? THAT would put an end to it. Also, why doesn't anybody mention that Mexico says that any child born of a Mexican citizen ANYWHERE is also a Mexican citizen? Why don't these two congressmen drive that point home?

Originally Posted by keekee

Why do we have to have an amendment which we all know doesn't have an iceburg's chance to pass? I heard that all Congress needs to do is clarify the language of the amendment. For example, what, exactly, does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? THAT would put an end to it. Also, why doesn't anybody mention that Mexico says that any child born of a Mexican citizen ANYWHERE is also a Mexican citizen? Why don't these two congressmen drive that point home?

You are spot on with this one Mexico wants to have their cake and eat it too. and our government is just dumb enough to keep feeding to them. even some legal Mexicans will say that they are Mexican even though they are legal American citizens. these illegals do not in no way want to become American Citizens. they only want the things that they are demanding at the expense of the citizens of this country. and they are not all the goody two shoes hard working honest people that they want us to believe they are. we are seeing these people for what they are more and more every day. "THEY ARE BLEEDING THIS COUNTRY DRY AND, OUR OWN GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWING IT." I'M NOT SAYING THAT A BODY SHOULD LIVE OFF OF THE TAXPAYERS BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T. BUT WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THE ONES WE HAVE NOW MAKE IT SO THAT PEOPLE NEED HELP WELL, THEY SHOULD NOT BE DENIED THESE BENEFITS. BUT, ILLEGALS CAN COME HERE AND THEY RECEIVE THESE BENEFITS AND THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE RECEIVING THEM AT ALL.

Originally Posted by keekee

I heard that all Congress needs to do is clarify the language of the amendment. For example, what, exactly, does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? THAT would put an end to it.

The 14th Amendment provides for Congress to enforce it.

The language of the amendment ought to be clear. Foreigners and aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The amendment's language is reinforced by explanations provided by authors. Also, the oath of allegiance to the United States, which all legal immigrants must swear, specifically requires them to end their allegiance to their home government. I think that the language of the oath has remained unchanged for more than one hundred years.

Originally Posted by keekee

Also, why doesn't anybody mention that Mexico says that any child born of a Mexican citizen ANYWHERE is also a Mexican citizen? Why don't these two congressmen drive that point home?

I'm wondering the same thing.

We know that race-baiting Reconquistas make false claims about the meaning of the 14th Amendment and that the oath of allegiance precludes dual citizenship. I wish that pro-Americans in congress would take advantage of knowledge that's already available and just hammer it home.

IMO there's no need for a new amendment, there is a need for pro-Americans to speak the truth about the amendment's meaning and how the oath of allegiance requires giving up any other allegiance, to become subject to the jursidiction of the United States. This is not rocket science.
************************************************** ******************************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade