Thread: Debate on immigration hits Jindal

Debate on immigration hits Jindal
By MICHELLE MILLHOLLON
Advocate Capitol News Bureau
Published: Aug 6, 2010 - Page: 15A

As the son of immigrants, Gov. Bobby Jindal is being drawn into a debate over whether birth on U.S. soil should continue to automatically guarantees U.S. citizenship.

At issue is Sen. Lindsey Graham’s talk about changing the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Graham, R-S.C., takes issue with granting birthright citizenship regardless of the parents’ citizenship.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he is open to at least exploring the idea of being more restrictive.

McCain’s home state of Arizona is struggling with immigration issues.

Jindal, whose mother was pregnant with him when she immigrated to the United States from India in the 1970s, is becoming the poster child for opponents to Graham’s idea despite the fact that none of the proposals being floated appears to target his situation.

“One of the leading members of the Republican Party today, Bobby Jindal, would not have been a citizen of the United States under the proposals that are being floated ... His mother was apparently on a student visa in the United States when she had him here,â€

Jindal's mother was here legally.

Jindal is a true full blood USA Citizen NOT an Achor baby.

Another note about Jindal and his wife; they have embraced the USA and are loyal to our way of life and have denounced any India loyalties.

Amending the U.S. Constitution is daunting because it requires approval by two thirds of Congress and three fourths of states.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution dates back to 1868, three years after the Civil War ended.

The amendment makes anyone born in the United States a citizen.

Part of the intent of the amendment was to make former slaves citizens of the United States.

Is an Amendment needed, or should the court be made to weigh in?

The amendment makes anyone born in the United States a citizen.

Misleading?

Just shows how desperate and depraved the open border clowns are getting.

I'm uncertain if the U.S. would need to amend the Constitution or would simply need to pass a resolution clarifying the interpretation of the current 14th amendment. The issue seems to be "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

ReggieMay wrote,

or would simply need to pass a resolution clarifying the interpretation of the current 14th amendment. The issue seems to be "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

If we were to rely on Congress to pass a resolution, would that not provide cover for those already here? Whereas if the courts weighed in, it would just be an interpretation of what is already in effect.

Originally Posted by roundabout

ReggieMay wrote,

or would simply need to pass a resolution clarifying the interpretation of the current 14th amendment. The issue seems to be "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

If we were to rely on Congress to pass a resolution, would that not provide cover for those already here? Whereas if the courts weighed in, it would just be an interpretation of what is already in effect.

I don't think we can take citizenship away from the existing anchor babies, but we could certainly put an end to the practice and prevent future waves of new little citizens.

ReggieMay wrote,

I don't think we can take citizenship away from the existing anchor babies

How can we take something away from somebody that they never possessed?

At the very least when they turn 18 they could take a citizenship test in ENGLISH and that could help to take away some of the stigma associated with their having been a anchor baby. Citizenship should not be taken for granted.


What do you do with those who are holding the chain attached to the anchor? Momma and Pappa?

Originally Posted by ReggieMay

I'm uncertain if the U.S. would need to amend the Constitution or would simply need to pass a resolution clarifying the interpretation of the current 14th amendment. The issue seems to be "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

That is correct. We want proper interpretation...not an amendment which can open a whole new can of worms.


Graham suggesting an amendment to the Constitution makes me wonder what he has in mind.

He is a real snake and not to be trusted.