HR 140 Bill to End Anchor Baby Citizenship in the US

115th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 140

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 3, 2017

Mr. King of Iowa (for himself, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Jones, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Babin, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Rohrabacher, and Mr. Woodall) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017”.

SEC. 2. Citizenship at birth for certain persons born in the United States.

(a) In general.—Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended—

(1) by inserting “(a) In general.—” before “The following”;

(2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (h) as paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(b) Definition.—Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is—

“(1) a citizen or national of the United States;

“(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or

“(3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).”.

(b) Applicability.—The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...-bill/140/text

_______________________

The bill was assigned to the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security on January 23, 2017 and awaits its first hearing. Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security is Representative Bob Goodlatte from Virginia. The bill now has 25 co-sponsors for a total of 26 Sponsors.

Thank you Representative Steve King for introducing this important bill in the US House of Representatives!! Thank you very very much!! And many thanks also to 25 co-sponsors of your important legislation. Your bill is such a great example of common sense and intelligence, so I hope Chairman Goodlatte holds a hearing on it soon so the bill can advance to the floor for a broad bipartisan Vote and be moved on to the US Senate.

This nonsense of anchor baby citizenship for children of illegal aliens must grind to a halt.

Contact numbers for Chairman Goodlatte to ask for a committee hearing on this important legislation for anyone interested in doing so:

Office Locations
Washington, D.C.
2309 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Phone:
(202) 225-5431
Fax:
(202) 225-9681

HARRISONBURG
70 North Mason Street
Harrisonburg, VA 22802

Phone:
(540) 432-2391
Fax:
(540) 432-6593

LYNCHBURG
916 Main Street
Suite 300
Lynchburg, VA 24504

Phone:
(434) 845-8306
Fax:
(434) 845-8245

ROANOKE
10 Franklin Road SE
Suite 540
Roanoke, VA 24011

Phone:
(540) 857-2672
Fax:
(540) 857-2675

STAUNTON
117 South Lewis Street
Suite 215
Staunton, VA 24401

Phone:
(540) 885-3861
Fax:
(540) 885-3930

https://goodlatte.house.gov/

Link to committee members of House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security:

https://judiciary.house.gov/subcommi...rder-security/

Quote:

---

The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.

---

We do not want this the way it is written -
No good - just clarify, don't "amend". Understand the attempt is to stop brc but stating it doesn't affect those born before the enactment of this act is not the avenue to pursue the problem. The intentions are good but ...

It would be better to clarify once and for all, what the amendment pertains to - it does not pertain to illegal aliens birthing babies here for citizenship. They will say born on soil but they are not here legally - and their anchor, should not be granted citizenship.

This bill would incorrectly give citizenship to all anchor babes and eventually their parents thru their child's "citizenship"; plus entire family will be able to be here thru the incorrect "concept" that they are now.

This bill clearly WRONGLY states they are citizens now. That is all the millions of DAPAs & their anchors - this bill defines that they will definitely be citizens. Very big amnesty!

Write all those involved that this is a bad bill - can trump come up with something to clarify anchor babies citizenship or is he too busy letting them continue to birth on our $$$$$ - making sure they all continue to get full coverage for free under medicaid.

I'm afraid that for those already born here and being born until this law is enacted, it's too late. There's a provision in the US Constitution that prohibits laws of this type being applied retroactively. It's called ex post facto. That's why the bill is written the way it is and why time is of the essence with regards to passing this important law while we have this short window of control of both Houses of Congress and the White House.

trump promised he would look into the true meaning of the amendment - said legal scholars have discussed "clarifying"..would prefer that avenue than this act.

You have areas that are forming legislation not to school illegals kids. Not everyone wants to acquiesce to clearly making them citizens as this act would do - it would be the same as an amnesty, all illegals have children born here. Every single one will remain or go back only to be brought back legally by the child.

This act is not a good solution. Clarify they are not American citizens as the amendment was not written for illegal aliens or travelers either.

You might as well say the only deportations will be known criminals if and when they find them. This act gives clear credence to millions of anchor babies and their parents will be entitled to be here. Case closed.

The way I see it, we have 2 choices, do nothing like we've done for decades or do something to stop it going forward. Steve King's bill stops it going forward from the date of enactment, and if we can get it through the Senate, Trump will sign it into law. Like I said, we have a very short window of opportunity to achieve this, so my feeling is we focus some effort to get it done quickly.

artist wrote:

Quote:

---

trump promised he would look into the true meaning of the amendment - said legal scholars have discussed "clarifying"..would prefer that avenue than this act.

---

That was in reference to whether we needed to amend the US Constitution in order to stop anchor baby citizenship. Trump's answer was no he didn't think so, based on legal scholars. We just need a law to change the practice going forward. Trump could technically stop it going forward by refusing to issue US passports to children of illegal aliens, and possibly instructions of some kind to SSA to stop handing out social security numbers based just on birth certificates to children of illegal aliens, but I don't see him taking that on without a new law behind him to do it. His actions would just be blocked by some 9th circuit court and without the new law, who knows what the US Supreme Court would do. We don't want to take any risks with the court system without a solid law on the issue, because historically, the US Supreme Court has almost always supported the illegal immigrant and alien over US citizens, a strange history for a court that refused to end slavery.

But that's what it is, so you work within the game to win and make some progress, seems to me. I think we owe it to ourselves, our kids, grandkids and future generations to make some progress and to me the signing of HR 140 into law would be one of the most, if not the most, important legislative achievements of our entire movement.

But there is very little time to do it, so it needs to be put on a fast track course, seems to me.

Like I said, with this bill, you might as well say it amnesties all except known criminals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

artist wrote:



That was in reference to whether we needed to amend the US Constitution in order to stop anchor baby citizenship. Trump's answer was no he didn't think so, based on legal scholars. We just need a law to change the practice going forward. Trump could technically stop it going forward by refusing to issue US passports to children of illegal aliens, and possibly instructions of some kind to SSA to stop handing out social security numbers based just on birth certificates to children of illegal aliens, but I don't see him taking that on without a new law behind him to do it. His actions would just be blocked by some 9th circuit court and without the new law, who knows what the US Supreme Court would do. We don't want to take any risks with the court system without a solid law on the issue, because historically, the US Supreme Court has almost always supported the illegal immigrant and alien over US citizens, a strange history for a court that refused to end slavery.

But that's what it is, so you work within the game to win and make some progress, seems to me. I think we owe it to ourselves, our kids, grandkids and future generations to make some progress and to me the signing of HR 140 into law would be one of the most, if not the most, important legislative achievements of our entire movement.

But there is very little time to do it, so it needs to be put on a fast track course, seems to me.

---

We are running out of time , and must act sooner rather than later , as the illegal alien population has been increasing mostly by births for a number of years.
Most parents of anchor babies have been illegally in the country for a long time,and their children are responsible for the ever increasing rise in the Latino vote , all legal due to birthright citizenship. The attempted transformation of our county is being accomplished by giving precious U.S. citizenship to the offspring of illegals,and securing the border will not be enough to save it; anchor baby citizenship has to end!

That's the effect of ex post facto. We can't pass a law, policy or court ruling on something like this and apply it retroactively, especially on something that the government itself has done, and no legal scholar has ever said otherwise. Under the US Constitution, we can stop this crazy practice going forward but we can't do anything about the past. It's the same reason we didn't hang slaver owners after the Civil War.

Prefer this thought line and avenue to fight for rather than acquiesce to a backdoor amnesty .......plus already huge amounts of" anchor babies" are in mexico with their parents, stopping that motion would be self defeating for Americans.
Get E-Verify going and they will self deport with their anchors.

On the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship

by Rich Lowry August 18, 2015 2:36 PM @richlowry

Lino Graglia of the University of Texas Law School had a law review article on it a few years back: The 1866 Act begins with a statement from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is derived: “[A]ll 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 . . .” The phrase “and not subject to any foreign power” seems clearly to exclude children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal. The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause substituted the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” but there is no indication of intent to change the original meaning. In the 39th Congress, which enacted the 1866 Civil Rights Act and proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, the question arose of how to avoid granting birthright citizenship to members of Indian tribes living on reservations. The issue was whether an explicit exclusion of Indians should be written into the Citizenship Clause as it was in the above-quoted first sentence of the 1866 Act. It was decided that this was not necessary, because, although Indians were at least partly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not to the United States. Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Jacob Howard of Ohio were the principal authors of the citizenship clauses in both the 1866 Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Trumbull stated that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, which means “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Howard agreed that “jurisdiction” meant a full and complete jurisdiction, the same “in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” Children born to Indian parents with tribal allegiances were therefore necessarily excluded from birthright citizenship, and explicit exclusion was unnecessary. This reasoning would seem also to exclude birthright citizenship for the children of legal resident aliens and, a fortiori, of illegal aliens. It appears, therefore, that the Constitution, far from clearly compelling the grant of birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, is better understood as denying the grant.

http://c7.nrostatic.com/corner/42269...hip-rich-lowry

California is a perfect case study of the pros and cons of the 14th Amendment and its intent. We now have children born in the United States to non citizen parents holding office in our state government. They have clearly shown that their loyalty is to their parents heritage and not to America.

It must be stopped. Doing nothing is not solving the problem. The past has come and gone and nothing can or will be changed regarding it. It's what we do now to protect the future from any more of this nonsense. Like I've said, we only have a short window of control of both chamber of Congress and the White House. It will not last long. So not acting now with a law to stop it is the same as doing nothing which is acquiescing by definition.

No really doing something is to interpret the amendment properly. Pushing this act will stop those that are leaving now with their anchor babies.