Thread: Political momentum grows for revoking birthright citizenship

By Alexander Bolton - 08/01/10 12:33 PM ET

Sen. Jon Kyl, the second-ranking member of the Senate Republican leadership, voiced support Sunday for hearings on whether to deny citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.

Another Republican senator, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, called on all Americans to carry a biometric identification card to prove to employers they are eligible to work legally.



Taken together, the lawmakers’ statements signal that the GOP is striking a tougher rhetorical posture on illegal immigration before the November elections.

Kyl (Ariz.), the Senate Republican whip, cited the costs illegal immigrants pose to state governments, which must pay for their education and medical care.

“The question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?â€

The 14th amendment, which Congress passed in 1866, grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States.

The amendment is supposed to protect those born under the jurisdiction of the United States not outlaws here in violation, defiance and open contempt of it.

It's almost like they have some sort of eye disease and don't see the section that says, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That means obeying and enforcement of laws, both of which illegal aliens abhor!

[quote]You would have a document that's trustworthy and verifiable,â€

Originally Posted by topsecret10

Graham said every American should carry a biometic ID card with a finger print that must be presented to employers.

This is another red herring, an attempt to change the subject but make it look like a solution that it isn't. Handing out biometric cards has nothing to do with enforcing illegal immigration. It is another one of those "let us do something unrelated to enforcing immigration but trick you into thinking that we are doing something."

No, just enforce the border.

Originally Posted by Richard

The 14th amendment, which Congress passed in 1866, grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States.

The amendment is supposed to protect those born under the jurisdiction of the United States not outlaws here in violation, defiance and open contempt of it.

Ditto Richard! Anyone who believes the framers intended to bestow citizenship to the offspring of those who intentionally violated our sovereignty is at best ignorant, and at worst dishonest, regarding the meaning of the 14th Amendment!

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Originally Posted by Richard

The 14th amendment, which Congress passed in 1866, grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States.

The amendment is supposed to protect those born under the jurisdiction of the United States not outlaws here in violation, defiance and open contempt of it.

Ditto Richard! Anyone who believes the framers intended to bestow citizenship to the offspring of those who intentionally violated our sovereignty is at best ignorant, and at worst dishonest, regarding the meaning of the 14th Amendment!

ABSOLUTELY! We don't need another Constitutional Amendment - It's already there. What we do need is a Reading 101 class followed by a mandatory Constitution 101 class for everyone in this government!

A Constitutional amendment is not necessary. Section 5 of the 14th amendment says that Congress has the authority to enforce it. Thus all Congress has to do is pass a law prohibiting citizenship to children born to illegal aliens and of course the President would have to sign it. A tall order at best but easier to do than passing a Constitutional amendment.

I'm old enough that when I took English in school vocabulary was still taught. Many words in the English language have more than one applicable meaning and context of statement determines which to use. Oh but now I have to put up with moronic statements claiming certain words have only one meaning. The most infuriating of which (only because it pops up most often) is that human beings are not Aliens because Alien means of another world.

Second is "Under the jurisdiction there of" being interpreted to mean only subject to the local laws.

Surely I am not the only one that admires the great vocabularies used by our founding fathers. I actually wish my vocabulary skills were half as good.