Thread: First Kill The DREAM Now Some Look To Birthright Citizenship

By Woody Thomas on December 20, 2010, 10:32 am


We are sure that you have heard about the controversial immigration laws that were passed in Arizona earlier this year…we reported on it, and the subsequent political nuclear disaster that has now culminated in the DREAM Act getting killed this weekend in the Senate. And just when you thought the dust may settle a bit, comes the question of Birthright Citizenship.

Birthright Citizenship Held In question
The effort in Arizona, spearheaded by longtime anti-illegal immigration crusader and incoming state Senate President Russell Pearce, is remarkable for two reasons. First, it moves the focus of the immigration debate from those who are in the country illegally to their children, who currently become American citizens if they are born in the United States. Second, Arizona will not be alone in questioning the principle of “birthright citizenship,â€

This is one of the most if not the most important piece of legislation that needs to be passed nationwide to curb illegl immigration and to stop making a mockery out of our citizenship.

The stakes are the eventual fate of about 340,000 children every year, that was born to parents who are in the country illegally.

Everybody overlooks the point that if they cannot become automatic citizens, most of these children would never be born here. That number would go way down to maybe 20,000 a year.

They have learned that the more anchors they produce , the more $$$$$$$$$$$$ they can steal from American taxpayers

We won't have to worry about anymore "nightmare acts" If the children of Illegals are not made citizens.... Thats why we have the MAJOR PROBLEM THAT WE DO....

One of my major pet peeves is the way the 14th amendment has been twisted. It was NEVER intended to give birth rights to any one born of Foreign parents.


"In the 1866 Senate ratification debate, the Citizenship Clause’s proponent, Jacob Howard of Michigan, said it was, 'simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural and national law, a citizen of the United States. … This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.'"

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index ... r_illegals

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is derived: 'All 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.' (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:

'A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment.'

Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois was, Graglia writes, one of two 'principal authors of the citizenship clauses in 1866 act and the 14th Amendment.' He said that 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' meant subject to its 'complete' jurisdiction, meaning 'not owing allegiance to anybody else.' Hence children whose Indian parents had tribal allegiances were excluded from birthright citizenship."
------------------------------------------------
He is talking about Indians in this part, but it also applies to what is going on now. For example, any children born to 2 Mexican parents are, technically, subjects of the Mexican Gov. regardless of where they are born.

Originally Posted by Justthefacts

They have learned that the more anchors they produce , the more $$$$$$$$$$$$ they can steal from American taxpayers

That's no hidden secret, they pretty much have an industry of this!

Originally Posted by topsecret10

We won't have to worry about anymore "nightmare acts" If the children of Illegals are not made citizens.... Thats why we have the MAJOR PROBLEM THAT WE DO....

No, I think we'll have to keep shooting down "nightmare acts." The nightmare act was designed for those children who were born to parents who couldn't get here fast enough.

I love google, they have so much information.

I found an Article written September 27, 1957 by David Lawrence with the title: There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/lawrence/no14th.htm

A MISTAKEN BELIEF -- that there is a valid article in the
Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" -- is
responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the
ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of
America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three
fourths of the States of the Union as required by the
Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was
dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868.
The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the
Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary
to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution.
Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of
ratification.
--------------------------------------

Its a long article, I posted the first paragraph but he seems to back up with he says with some nice facts.

Originally Posted by thedramaofmylife

Originally Posted by Justthefacts

They have learned that the more anchors they produce , the more $$$$$$$$$$$$ they can steal from American taxpayers

That's no hidden secret, they pretty much have an industry of this!

Not to mention birthright tourism, sometimes from countries that are not our friends.