Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member SOSADFORUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    IDAHO
    Posts
    19,570

    The 14th Amendment Birthright citizenship

    The 14th Amendment
    This website serves to explain the original intent of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to the US Constitution, and how it is currently misinterpreted to give citizenship to children born in the United States of illegal alien parents. These children, via their birthright citizenship, act as anchor babies and can, upon reaching the age of majority, facilitate bringing their extended family into the US in order to obtain citizenship. Although some experts believe that a Constitutional amendment would be necessary to remedy the misinterpretation, many believe that Congressional action would be sufficient and is urgently warranted.

    Click on here to learn more about the 14th amendment, really interesting

    http://www.14thamendment.us/
    Please support ALIPAC's fight to save American Jobs & Lives from illegal immigration by joining our free Activists E-Mail Alerts (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ron Paul Land
    Posts
    1,038
    Ron Paul introduced an amendment to the constitution to prevent anchor baby citizenship.

    Please people.. vote for him!!!

  3. #3
    Senior Member tinybobidaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    10,184
    Citizenship for babies of illegal aliens has to be to stopped. This practice is what separates families when there is an employment raid, something our government just doesn't seem to get.
    RIP TinybobIdaho -- May God smile upon you in his domain forevermore.

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

  4. #4
    cousinsal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    290
    What parent would actually LEAVE their CHILDREN behind if they get deported? They keep saying that the kids have to stay because they're American citizens. So what?

    What kind of parent would LEAVE a child in the U.S. when they are being sent back, no matter what the benefits here?

    Ridiculous. It's just a ruse, hoping to have the U.S. government give them the right to stay, instead of telling them to take the kids with you!!

    I'm sick of the "separating families" argument - we are not separating families - they did it to themselves when they snuck over the border. No more citizenship for illegals' children!

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Daytona Beach, FL
    Posts
    747
    It has actually be argued that this is infact NOT what the 14th means.

    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.
    Key word is Jurisdiction. Does the US Governemnt really have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants?

    Was not until June 15th, 1982 that Illegals were able to be citizens (Plyler vs. Doe). Also, this decision did not directly pertain to "anchor babies". It was implied and infered. Isn't this about the time that illegal immigration exploded?
    This decision needs to be revisited!

    The dissenting minority agreed in principle that it was unwise for illegal alien children to be denied a public education, but the four dissenting justices argued that the Texas law was not so objectionable as to be unconstitutional; that this issue ought to be dealt with through the legislative process; that "[t]he Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem"; and that the majority was overstepping its bounds by seeking "to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
    "Democrats Fall in Love, Republicans Fall in Line!"

    Ex-El Presidente' www.jorgeboosh.com

  6. #6
    Senior Member zeezil's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    16,593
    I'm sick of the "separating families" argument - we are not separating families - they did it to themselves when they snuck over the border. No more citizenship for illegals' children!
    you comment is a perfect example on how disingenious their arguement is. The more people that take the time to look at their claims and arguements, the more reasonable thinking logical people realize they have no merit. As ALIPAC'ers let's keep geting the word out.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #7
    Super Moderator imblest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    8,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistov
    Key word is Jurisdiction. Does the US Governemnt really have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants?

    Was not until June 15th, 1982 that Illegals were able to be citizens (Plyler vs. Doe). Also, this decision did not directly pertain to "anchor babies". It was implied and infered. Isn't this about the time that illegal immigration exploded?
    This decision needs to be revisited!

    The dissenting minority agreed in principle that it was unwise for illegal alien children to be denied a public education, but the four dissenting justices argued that the Texas law was not so objectionable as to be unconstitutional; that this issue ought to be dealt with through the legislative process; that "[t]he Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem"; and that the majority was overstepping its bounds by seeking "to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
    Good work, Pistov!! Sounds like it's something the Supreme Court needs to overturn! Maybe now that we've got some justices opposed to "rewriting the Constitution," they'd be willing to take a look at this again.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

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