Thread: GOP Sen. Jon Kyl Calls For Congressional Anchor Baby Hearing

GOP Sen. Jon Kyl Calls For Congressional Hearings to Look Into Denying Citizenship to Anchor Babies……

FACE THE NATION Interview

VIDEO: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6734163n

CBS: Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said today that Congress should hold hearings to look into denying citizenship to illegal aliens' children born in the United States, as the fight over immigration widens into the explosive "birthright" issue.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... izens.html

Pick up that bean and run with it Kyl. The entire U S population is watching and prayin for a touchdown...

HE COULD GO ALL THE WAY!!!!

14th Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... Background

===========================================

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving people (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive rights and procedural rights.

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.

The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederacy and its officials.

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Citizenship and civil rights

Background

Section 1, arguably the most far-reaching section of the Fourteenth Amendment, formally defines citizenship and protects a person's civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state. This represented the Congress's overruling of the Dred Scott decision to the extent that decision held black people were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.[1] The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.

This section was also in response to the Black Codes which southern states had passed in the wake of the Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery in the United States.[2] Those laws attempted to return freed slaves to something like their former condition by, among other things, restricting their movement, forcing them to enter into year-long labor contracts, and by preventing them from suing or testifying in court.[3]

Finally, this section was in response to violence against black people within the southern states. A Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect the rights and welfare of black people within those states.[4]
[edit] Citizenship Clause
Main article: Citizenship Clause

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[5] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[6] Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[6] and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.[7][8][6] Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[9] supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether birth in the United States automatically extended national citizenship. The Supreme Court held that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship.[10]

The clause's meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (189. The Court ruled that children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants possessed national citizenship by being born in United States.[11]

The difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[12] Wong Kim Ark and subsequent cases did not explicitly decide whether such children are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[13] but such birthright is generally assumed to be the case.[14] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), and INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985).[15][16][17]

Loss of national citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:

* Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically, this is not loss of citizenship but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a United States citizen.
* Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions that demonstrate desire to give up national citizenship.[18]

For much of the country's history, voluntary acquisition or exercise of a foreign citizenship was considered sufficient cause for revocation of national citizenship.[19] This concept was enshrined in a series of treaties between the United States and other countries (the Bancroft Treaties). However, the Supreme Court repudiated this concept in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), as well as Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), holding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred the Congress from revoking citizenship.
[edit] Due Process Clause
Main article: Due process

Beginning with Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897), the Court interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as providing substantive protection to private contracts and thus prohibiting a variety of social and economic regulation, under what was referred to as "freedom of contract".[20] Thus, the Court struck down a law decreeing maximum hours for workers in a bakery in Lochner v. New York (1905) and struck down a minimum wage law in Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923). However, the Court did uphold some economic regulation such as state prohibition laws (Mugler v. Kansas), laws declaring maximum hours for mine workers (Holden v. Hardy (189), laws declaring maximum hours for female workers (Muller v. Oregon (190), President Wilson's intervention in a railroad strike (Wilson v. New (1917)), as well as federal laws regulating narcotics (United States v. Doremus (1919)).

The Court repudiated the "freedom of contract" line of cases in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937). In the past forty years it has recognized a number of "fundamental rights" of individuals, such as privacy, which the states can regulate only under narrowly defined circumstances.[20] The Court has also significantly expanded the reach of procedural due process, requiring some sort of hearing before the government may terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school, or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits.[21][22]

The Court has ruled that in certain circumstances, the Due Process Clause requires a judge to recuse himself on account of concern of there being a conflict of interest. For example, on June 8, 2009, in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia had to recuse himself from a case involving a major contributor to his election to that court.[23]

About time, bet Obama screamed like a little girl.
Cuz CBS covered it.
Man if Mainstream America only knew how much this miss interpretation of the 14th costs us. We have to keep educating.The illegals and their supporters are getting reckless.

They might have to introduce the other idiom for it: "birth tourism"---which indicates how opportunistic this trend is. While they are at it, start talking about foreign retirees coming here and getting SSI payments.

HERE IS HOPING THAT THEY WILL FINALLY DO AWAY WITH BIRTH RIGHT CITIZENSHIP AND THAT WOULD PUT A STOP TO PREGNAT WOMEN FROM MEXICO COMING HERE BIG AS A TICK AND IN LABOR JUST TO HAVE AN ANCHOR BABY FOR TAXPAYER BENEFITS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE RECEIVING ANYWAY. AND IF OBAMA DON'T LIKE IT, WELL MAYBE HE SHOULD GO LIVE WITH THEM IN MEXICO. THE IDIOT

Originally Posted by Captainron

They might have to introduce the other idiom for it: "birth tourism"---which indicates how opportunistic this trend is. While they are at it, start talking about foreign retirees coming here and getting SSI payments.

I KNEW THESE PEOPLE FIGURED IN THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO COLA THIS YEAR FOR THOSE ON SOCIAL SECURITY. THE FEDS DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS ANYMORE DO THEY