Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
Like Tree18Likes

Thread: CONSTITUTION DOESN’T MANDATE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator GeorgiaPeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    21,835

    CONSTITUTION DOESN’T MANDATE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

    August 18, 2015

    Ken Klukowski

    Parts of Donald Trump’s immigration plan may raise serious constitutional questions, but the part that launched a media firestorm—ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens—does not.

    The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal.


    Media commentators have gotten this issue dead wrong. Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear” that its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen.
    That’s not the law. It has never been the law.

    Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.

    How is that possible? This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. Is this federal law unconstitutional?
    No. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: “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.” Today’s debate turns on the six words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”


    As captured in the movie Lincoln, the Thirteenth Amendment—which ended slavery—barely passed Congress because many Democrats supported slavery, and it was only through the political genius and resolve of Republican President Abraham Lincoln that the proposed amendment passed Congress in 1865, sending it to the states for ratification.

    In 1866, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act to guarantee black Americans their constitutional rights as citizens, claiming that the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to pass such laws. But many voted against the Civil Rights Act because they thought it exceeded Congress’s powers, and even many of its supporters doubted its legality.


    The Civil Rights Act included a definition for national citizenship, to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”


    That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.


    In 1884, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.


    That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth. They’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.
    So why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth? Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners. Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires. Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.


    Media confusion on this issue is puzzling, because the greatest legal minds in this country have discussed the issue. (Just none of them were put on camera to explain it.) Scholars including Dr. John Eastman of Chapman University, and even Attorney General Edwin Meese—the godfather of constitutional conservatism in the law—reject the myth of birthright citizenship.


    Nor is rejection of birthright citizenship limited to conservatives. Judge Richard Posner—a prolific scholar who, despite being appointed by Ronald Reagan, is a liberal judicial activist—wrote in 2003 in Ofoji v. Ashcroft:




    We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship….
    A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it….

    The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress did not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.


    It is another question as to whether Congress could strip citizenship from the children of illegals who already have it. If Congress could do that, then it could also strip citizenship from the many millions of foreigners who came to the United States legally and went through the lawful process to become Americans. There is no court precedent for that, and the congressional and ratification debates from the Fourteenth Amendment do not reveal a clear answer.


    Trump could rescind President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, but that executive order did not grant anyone citizenship, and it would be a steep uphill climb in court to try to take someone’s citizenship away. And if the children already here are American citizens, then they could never be deported.


    Some other parts of Trump’s plan face even longer odds. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights applies to all “persons,” not just citizens. And the courts have always held that due process requires any foreigner to be given a “meaningful hearing” in court before being deported. That would certainly impact the pace of deportation.


    Donald Trump’s position on immigration has changed drastically from his previous positions, just like his past support for socialized healthcare and abortion. He has not yet explained why he changed his position on immigration, and some voters do not trust that he sincerely holds to his current campaign positions.


    But none of that changes the legality of his immigration proposal. While parts of it may face legal challenges,
    denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.


    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...t-citizenship/
    Last edited by GeorgiaPeach; 08-18-2015 at 01:47 PM.
    Matthew 19:26
    But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
    ____________________

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)


  2. #2
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Absolutely correct! Great article, thanks, GeorgiaPeach!
    Last edited by Judy; 08-18-2015 at 05:20 PM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    Absolutely correct! Great article, thanks, New Mexican.
    GeorgiaPeach posted it.

    That's why we need to end birthright citizenship! NO other western nation has it except Canada! It's a magnet for illegals and MUST be stopped!

  4. #4
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Stopillegalimmigration View Post
    GeorgiaPeach posted it.

    That's why we need to end birthright citizenship! NO other western nation has it except Canada! It's a magnet for illegals and MUST be stopped!
    Thank you Stopillegalimmigration! Sorry GeorgiaPeach! Made the change.

    Oh yes, it must be stopped, Stopillegal immigration. And, we all must unite on this and demand it until it's done. No Amendment is required, a law would be helpful, but then again, a President and States can do it by simply stopping the wrongful policy which is all it is, not law, not Constitution, just a stupid, silly, but harmful practice.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Senior Member Ratbstard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New Alien City-(formerly New York City)
    Posts
    12,611
    The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
    The 14th Amendment

    By P.A. Madison
    Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
    February 1, 2005

    We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.

    We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.

    Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

    Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

    The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]

    It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

    [T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

    Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]

    Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:

    Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

    In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

    [Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

    No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

    In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

    Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

    [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]

    Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:

    I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...

    Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.

    It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that fourteenth amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.

    Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own home grown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."

    Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."

    The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the constitution.

    A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the citizenship clause as simply "declaratory" of what they regarded "as the law of the land already." This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard's express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States," and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can be.

    James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:

    When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[7]

    What does it all mean?

    In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child's birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child's citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child's parents to Jury Duty - then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

    The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.

    Footnotes

    [1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 (view actual page)
    [2]. Id. at 2893
    [3]. Id. at 2895
    [4]. Id. at 2893
    [5]. Id. at 2897
    [6]. Id. at 1291
    [7]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.

    Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its entirely only.

    http://www.14thamendment.us/articles...tionality.html
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,201
    Although the article posted by GeorgiaPeach and written by Ken Klukowski about so-called “birthright citizenship” is an excellent article there is one point that is questionable.

    Please note this quotation from the article: “It is another question as to whether Congress could strip citizenship from the children of illegals who already have it. If Congress could do that, then it could also strip citizenship from the many millions of foreigners who came to the United States legally and went through the lawful process to become Americans. There is no court precedent for that, and the congressional and ratification debates from the Fourteenth Amendment do not reveal a clear answer.”

    The United States government has already stripped citizenship from some 107 naturalized citizens for alleged involvement in war crimes. And others have been stripped of their citizenship for more mundane crimes.

    Although Anchor Babies have not committed any crimes there is legal precedent for nullifying US citizenship.
    Last edited by csarbww; 08-19-2015 at 05:15 AM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    The problem on this issue is that lawyers, media pundits, politicians, authors, "scholars", and many others who wish to expound on the issue of anchor baby citizenship haven't actually bothered to read either the 14th Amendment or the US Code 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401.Section 1401. There is no difference between the language of the 14th Amendment and US law regarding citizenship by birth. Both the 14th Amendment and the US Code pertaining to the US Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 require that the person born here be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to be a citizen by birth.

    So to all the stupid people who claim that "if you're born here, you're a citizen, period" are the fools and idiots who have and are continuing to destroy our nation, including such morons as Bill O'Reilly at Fox News and States who hand out certified birth certificates to children of illegal aliens and ignoramuses in the Federal Government who hand out Social Security Numbers and Passports and Medicaid and Food Stamps to children of illegal aliens.

    Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States nor are their children which is why neither illegal alliens nor their children are citizens of the United States.

    We don't need to "nullify" what isn't. Children of illegal aliens are not citizens, they do not have citizenship, because they are not citizens under the 14th Amendment or US Law. So, what needs to be done is the US Government and all 50 States need to abide the Constitution and US Law. That means no certified birth certificate for children of illegal aliens. That means no state or federal benefits for children of illegal aliens. That means no Passports for children of illegal aliens. That means no Social Security numbers for children of illegal aliens. No voting rights for children of illegal aliens. No rights or privileges of US nationals/citizens shall be conveyed to people who are not eligible and that includes anchor babies who are NOT citizens of the United States, as a matter of pure law.

    This does not require an Amendment to the US Constitution. It doesn't even require a new law to stop the illegal practice, although I believe a law is in the best interest of the United States to stop the idiots, fools and morons from handing out citizenship privileges and rights to people who are not entitled to them. All federal and state agencies are already subject to the US Constitution and federal immigration law that already prohibit birthright citizenship to people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which includes first and foremost illegal aliens in our country in violation of US immigration law. If the law didn't apply to illegal aliens first and foremost it would not apply to anyone, the words would have no meaning and be useless. But of course the words have meaning and they are there for a very specific purpose which is to restrict automatic birthright citizenship to children of natural born and naturalized US citizens, children of freed slaves who were under both the jurisdiction and protection of the United States, and because of the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court Ruling, children of legal immigrants.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

    U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part I › § 1401

    8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

    Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

    US Code
    Notes
    Authorities (CFR)

    prev | next
    US LAW:

    8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

    (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

    (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

    (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
    (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

    (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
    Under our existing Constitution and Federal Law, neither the federal government nor any state has the authority to issue any document or right, privilege or immunity that is reserved for citizens or legal residents, including any document that would convey a right of automatic birthright citizenship to their children. That includes passports, Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, voter registration, state issued certified birth certificates, public funded benefits, and so much more. All 50 States need to be advised by the federal government that it will no longer recognize a state birth certificate issued to children of illegal aliens for the purposes of obtaining Social Security numbers, passports or federally funded benefits reserved for citizens and legal permanent residents. It's just that simple.

    What do we do with illegal aliens who were born here who wrongfully think they're citizens when they aren't? They're deported until they meet the conditions of re-entry and naturalization, the same as legal immigrants.

    Who in their right mind could have an emotional or legal objection to that?!

    You hear these stupid people claim "but this is through no fault of their own". So what? That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that American Citizens are not responsible for these people because they are here through no fault of ours, they are not our responsibility, we are not required to use our money and life-time earnings struggling to attain our "DREAMS" or national debt burdening our posterity to fund theirs or allow our nation to ever be governed by or have elections tilted or policies influenced or our tax coffers robbed by people who aren't supposed to be in our country to begin with.
    Last edited by Judy; 08-19-2015 at 08:59 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #8
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012
    August 19, 2015
    Congress can end birthright citizenship simply by passing a law

    By Newsmachete


    Now that Donald Trump is talking about ending birthright citizenship, other candidates who have never mentioned it before like Scott Walker are as well. But contrary to what the media would have you believe, the Constitution doesn't have to be amended to end birthright citizenship. All it would take would be an act of Congress.

    If an illegal alien has a child on American soil, the Constitution does not require the child be granted American citizenship. Congress can give citizenship to anyone it wants, but the Fourteenth Amendment only commands citizenship to persons born on U.S. soil to parents who are not citizens of a foreign country.

    Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment begins, “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.”

    This makes it appear that illegal alien children are citizens, if they are "born" in the United States, right? Not so. The key phrase here is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Babies born in the U.S. are citizens if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Illegal aliens, by virtue of not being citizens, or even being in the country legally, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They're foreigners. Therefore, illegal children born here are not subject to citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

    While many erroneously claim that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil, the reality is that is not the law and has never been the law. Current immigration law–found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)–specifies that a baby born on American soil to (1) a foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.

    If the 14th Amendment said all people born here were citizens, how could 8 USC 1401 carve out these exceptions? The fact is, if Congress can make these exceptions, the 14th Amendment is not absolute, and the Congress can also make another exception for people in the country illegally.

    But don't expect John Boehner or Mitch McConnell to line up any votes on this soon. They wouldn't want to alienate the Hispanic community the way Donald Trump has (he's actually leading among Hispanics in Nevada).

    When you think about it, why should children of lawbreaking trespassers be entitled to citizenship? Why should we reward the parents for their illegality? Just think: if a man robs a bank but gives the money to his kids, why are we heartless for taking the money back?

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz3jHC6lGef


    See Also:

    http://www.alipac.us/f12/rep-steve-k...enship-322263/

  9. #9
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    I think it is safe to say that the personal opinions posted on the internet regarding this issue will have zero affect on what The Supreme Court, other Courts, Congress or the next President does or doesn't do. IMO
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  10. #10
    Super Moderator GeorgiaPeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    21,835
    As I type this I hear an old audio clip of Senator Harry Reid being played on Fox News. He is supporting the end to birthright citizenship. I think this audio clip may be from 1993. The Fox News host asks the question of shouldn't we end this, it costs so many dollars and he ties it to welfare. The liberal talking head says that we would regret it. Really?

    Ending birthright citizenship is an important issue. In truth, it is only the lack of "will" and the hysterics that many engage in when discussing the subject that stands in the way. The lack of will, the excuses, the shaming that takes place, is all used to create diversions.

    If you want to learn the proper arguments against birthright citizenship and illegal aliens, if you want to know the history and where the so called experts take us down a false trail, please listen to the following from Mark Levin.

    Birthright citizenship granted to millions of illegal alien children has cost our nation and its taxpayers too many billions. It needs to end.

    Audio at this link:

    http://www.alipac.us/f13/mark-levin-...3/#post1470212
    Last edited by GeorgiaPeach; 08-19-2015 at 01:13 PM.
    Matthew 19:26
    But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
    ____________________

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-06-2012, 05:15 PM
  2. Birthright Citizenship / Dual Citizenship: Admin. Tyranny
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-11-2011, 02:40 AM
  3. Senate Proposal Would Amend Constitution to Birthright
    By Reciprocity in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-28-2011, 05:12 PM
  4. Grahamnesty: Constitution Amendment to End BirthRight
    By jamesw62 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-29-2010, 09:50 AM
  5. Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship — Edward Erler
    By dgough in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-28-2008, 01:46 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •