Thread: ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP GAINS MORE MOMENTUM

ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP GAINS MORE MOMENTUM

NumbersUSA
February 25, 2011

Reps. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), John Culberson (R-Texas), Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) and Ted Poe (R-Texas) have now cosponsored the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 introduced by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).

The bill currently had 66 cosponsors and amends current U.S. code to require at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident for any newborn to receive automatic citizenship.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. and "subject to the jurisdiction"; it also grants Congress the power to enforce and define the provisions of the amendment.

Since the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Congress has defined Birthright Citizenship through appropriate legislation, which for decades has granted citizenship to newborns with both parents of illegal aliens, foreign tourists or temporary foreign workers and students.

The Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the right to define birthright citizenship differently.

The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 will add to the existing federal code a provision that requires at least one parent of a newborn to be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident in order for the newborn to receive automatic citizenship.

The United States is only one of the last two industrialized nations (Canada) to offer Birthright Citizenship.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/ ... -marchant-

The Fourteenth Amendment extends citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. and "subject to the jurisdiction"; it also grants Congress the power to enforce and define the provisions of the amendment.

Since the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Congress has defined Birthright Citizenship through appropriate legislation, which for decades has granted citizenship to newborns with both parents of illegal aliens, foreign tourists or temporary foreign workers and students.

The Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the right to define birthright citizenship differently.

Anybody makes heads or tails of this? Wish there was a bit more clarity. I think I understand the jist of it. Yet it seems a bit misleading.

Where is this "appropriate legislation" that Congress has used to define "birthright citizenship differently?"

Here's an older article addressing the subject:

Momentum Is Building To End Birthright Citizenship
February 13, 2011

11 MORE SIGNERS OF FEDERAL BILL — KEEP UP THE PRESSURE


Anchor Babies

“The Library of Congress announced that 11 more U.S. Representatives have co-sponsored H.R. 140 to end giving U.S. citizenship to the births of illegal aliens, temporary foreign workers and foreign tourists,â€

Originally Posted by roundabout

Anybody makes heads or tails of this? Wish there was a bit more clarity. I think I understand the jist of it. Yet it seems a bit misleading.

Where is this "appropriate legislation" that Congress has used to define "birthright citizenship differently?"

There really is no appropriate legislation. There have been a couple rulings in the past but none of them actually tackled the issue. The majority of rulings if stretched favor no citizenship to illegal children. The only thing that actually speaks to citizenship to illegals is a 1982 SC judge OPINION from 1 judge. As before 1982 was not really an issue that was on peoples minds at all and the opinion gave way for being used to give defacto citizenship.

As far as I can tell the President has the authority to shoot down automatic citizenship to children of illegals with his power. A real SC ruling however would trump that, and a legislature act would trump all. President just uses his Executive powers to declare it a foreign invasion takeover and his authority and job to protect the US from foreign invasion.

Ratbstard wrote,

The bill is to demand that the 14th amendment be enforced as it was originally intended … babies born to foreigners and ALIENS are NOT U.S. citizens.

This is what I was looking for, Thanks Ratbstard.

The other article read a little funky,....perhaps it was just me.

Thanks ReformUSA2012. The original post threw me a bit. Does it read straight forward to you?

Ohh yah it throws people who aren't informed heavily on the issue off. It makes people think we actually have laws and rulings to specifically give illegal alien children citizenship. If people think its the norm they are less likely to challenge it and shrug it off, but if they think its a newer power grab by the government much more likely to rise against it.

Just your liberal media and reporters at work.

We need to get across the 100 mark before winter is over to show the House leadership that this is an issue the American voters really want tackled.

We can only push and hope. Rep. Shuler's SAVE Act had over 100 co-sponsors and never reached the floor for a vote.

ReformUSA2012 wrote,

Ohh yah it throws people who aren't informed heavily on the issue off. It makes people think we actually have laws and rulings to specifically give illegal alien children citizenship. If people think its the norm they are less likely to challenge it and shrug it off, but if they think its a newer power grab by the government much more likely to rise against it.

Just your liberal media and reporters at work.

The original post is written by NumbersUSA. They are on our side. I just thought the article was written a bit confusing. Could have been more clarity on the position. Just my thoughts. Was wondering if it was my interpretation, or lack thereof.

But I take it you noticed it also? It could have been more straight forward. My heart skipped a beat, knowing the source and wondering what was held back for so long?

The United States is only one of the last two industrialized nations (Canada) to offer Birthright Citizenship.

Did not know that, very interesting.

Anyone with common sense knows what the 14th amendment was intended for due to our history regarding slavery.

Time to get with the times, show some backbone and be honest about it.