Thread: NO MORE ANCHOR BABIES / BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP HR1940

Information on Congressman Nathan Deal's (GA) voting record grade from NumbersUSA

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfil ... &VIPID=223

Jeremiah 29:11

Since there is concern that such a change to the Fourteenth would probably require a Constitutional amendment once the rubber meets the road and serious discussion really commences on the matter, I propose a Plan B of sorts.

Here's the thing: mexico at least informally recognizes dual citizenship. According to mexican law, a child born on mexican soil, or to mexican nationals ("wherever they may be") is a mexican citizen. The USA recognizes this as well-- a child born in the USA or to U.S. citizens in other countries is also a U.S. citizen. Thus, these so-called "anchor babies" technically would have dual citizenship.

I propose that "birthright citizenship" be retained, at least for the short term, and that the ENTIRE family be deported, including the child. That child is a mexican citizen as well, so he/she ought to be required to live there with his/her parents until reaching a certain age. I suggest 18 or 21 years old. At that time, when the child reaches the age of majority, the child would then be able to choose for him/herself which country he/she wants to live in. Of course, there would be the need to prove citizenship... a minor detail, as mexicans do it all the time to get work. Don't they? Uh-huh... yup.

Also, end or limit the number of foreign nationals that a citizen can sponsor. I believe the cap is now 5. That needs to be lowered to maybe 3 at most, and no more than 5 per household to prevent mass sponsorships.

Just my 2 cents' worth...

The surprise, then, is that American courts ever adopted birthright citizenship at all, given the fact that until well after passage of the 14th Amendment, "politically no one intended to accord equal citizenship rights solely on the basis of birth within the territory," Price said. Great Britain, the nation that gave birth to Calvin's Case, abandoned birthright citizenship in 1981, after four centuries. "The remaining question is whether, as a legal practice and a political idea, the United States rule of birthright citizenship will survive, without the sanction it once enjoyed as a product of natural law."

http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarc ... tions.html

Bill Would Eliminate Birthright Citizenship

Sunday , November 27, 2005

Birthright citizenship is the right in which babies born in the United States, even to parents in the country illegally, automatically become American citizens.
Critics call them anchor babies, and say the laws should be changed to prevent automatic citizenship that could, in the end, reward illegal immigrants.

"By granting the child citizenship, that child then is able, down the road, as he becomes an adult, to legally make the parents citizens of this country as well," said Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga.

Now, a bill sponsored by Deal is gaining support in Congress. It would deny automatic citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants.

"The idea that somebody could come here, five minutes later give birth and have a brand new United States citizen is simply something that most people in their gut feel is wrong," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman at the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

"It would be just wrong for us to deny such a basic right to just this population," said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, or CHIRLA.

Critics of the plan also warn that denying birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants could result in a divided culture such as the one that was demonstrated so vividly in the recent wave of arsons and vandalism in France.

The 14th Amendment states, in part, that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S." Backers of birthright policy say changing the way that clause is interpreted would be unconstitutional and un-American.

"It goes against a tradition of really integrating immigrants into our society in order to unify us as a nation, and what it actually does, it further marginalizes a whole community," Salas said.

Deal says supporters are missing the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which he argues excludes anyone in the United States in violation of the law — like illegal immigrants.

"If you look at the original debate of that amendment in the Congress, it was obviously not intended to give carte blanche birthright citizenship to anyone who happened to be born on American soil," Deal said.

Provisions to drop automatic citizenship are also part of several other immigration reform plans circulating on Capitol Hill, and the idea is gaining public support. A recent poll shows 49 percent of Americans oppose automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil with only 41 percent in favor.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176664,00.html

Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11

Testimony of Dr. John C. Eastman

Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law
Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence

Oversight Hearing on “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereigntyâ€

Originally Posted by Schrodingers_Cat

Since there is concern that such a change to the Fourteenth would probably require a Constitutional amendment once the rubber meets the road and serious discussion really commences on the matter, I propose a Plan B of sorts.

Here's the thing: mexico at least informally recognizes dual citizenship. According to mexican law, a child born on mexican soil, or to mexican nationals ("wherever they may be") is a mexican citizen. The USA recognizes this as well-- a child born in the USA or to U.S. citizens in other countries is also a U.S. citizen. Thus, these so-called "anchor babies" technically would have dual citizenship.

I propose that "birthright citizenship" be retained, at least for the short term, and that the ENTIRE family be deported, including the child. That child is a mexican citizen as well, so he/she ought to be required to live there with his/her parents until reaching a certain age. I suggest 18 or 21 years old. At that time, when the child reaches the age of majority, the child would then be able to choose for him/herself which country he/she wants to live in. Of course, there would be the need to prove citizenship... a minor detail, as mexicans do it all the time to get work. Don't they? Uh-huh... yup.

Also, end or limit the number of foreign nationals that a citizen can sponsor. I believe the cap is now 5. That needs to be lowered to maybe 3 at most, and no more than 5 per household to prevent mass sponsorships.

Just my 2 cents' worth...

I think that that is a good "Plan B"...however this will only work if we can identify and track the "guest workers" in the U.S. so that we would know who had over stayed their visas in order to "deport" them.

Some of us have started the calls to our representatives and senators. We need to end the birthright citizenship.

Please contact representatives to let them know we want birthright citizenship ended - no more "Anchor Babies."

HR1940 is the bill - Rep. Nathan Deal (GA) is the sponsor - is your representative a sponsor

Representative Zach Wamp (TN) signed on in May -

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

Some of us have started the calls to our representatives and senators. We need to end the birthright citizenship.

Please contact representatives to let them know we want birthright citizenship ended - no more "Anchor Babies."

HR1940 is the bill - Rep. Nathan Deal (GA) is the sponsor - is your representative a sponsor

Representative Zach Wamp (TN) signed on in May -

Mine is not yet signed on--called yesterday and today to ask why not!

that is merely an interpretation of the 14th Amendment.... all it takes is a challenge in Congress to re-interpret it without necessarily making it a new Amendment...

that stipulation should have been introduced as an amendment to S1369..or was it?

Here how the 14th Amendment begins:

"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."

One might construe "jurisdiction" as not applying to a child born to illegal aliens because the child's parents' allegiance to their home country is assumed to be preeminent. And if the parents do not hold an allegiance to the USA, neither will the child as it grows up. In that case the "jurisdiction" of said state or the federal government does not apply since no fealty to said government will be observed by that child.

Pinocchionose wrote

that is merely an interpretation of the 14th Amendment.... all it takes is a challenge in Congress to re-interpret it without necessarily making it a new Amendment...

abigale, I asked if my representative was signed on to the bill though I suspected he was a co-sponsor. The person answering the phone did not know anything about the bill or if the representative was signed on as a co-sponsor. I then asked for someone to call me back with the information. They called me back and yes, my representative signed on in May.

If you do this, they realize that this is important to constituents. In addition, you may speak to someone higher up in the chain.

Please send emails and faxes requesting that birthright citizenship is ended and that you will be checking to see if your representative signs on to HR 1940.

You might add that this misinterpretation of the 14th amendment has resulted in millions of give-a-way citizenships for nothing more than the act of a birth while the citizen of a foreign county and an invader of the United States.

It has resulted in billions of lost dollars given to those who have broken our laws. Anchor babies and their families burden American taxpaying citizens. They are a financial and social burden to Americans and an anchor to illegal aliens to receive social benefits and other FREEBIES.

Call today -

Psalm 139:14