Thread: Repeal Birthright Citizenship

Is there any way to get a nationwide petition started to show support for a repeal of the birthright citizenship law? Repeal is favored by almost everyone!

This is going to be disasterous when these babies reach adulthood and bring their families in through chain migration. I am tired of small groups ruling the majority through intimidation, etc...

I agree, we do need a nationwide petition to end this nonsense. Our citizenship is being cheapened by alotting it to the offspring of illegal aliens.

E-mail, FAXs and phone calls to your elected federal officials would work best. Let them know they work for us and what we want.

When I spoke with the lady at my congressman's office about this and told her that they are not listening to the American people, I was told, you had a say when you voted for the one that you thought would vote on issues the way you would vote. Well they are not voting on issues the way we would vote so what now?

Originally Posted by sawdust

When I spoke with the lady at my congressman's office about this and told her that they are not listening to the American people, I was told, you had a say when you voted for the one that you thought would vote on issues the way you would vote. Well they are not voting on issues the way we would vote so what now?

SAW!
don't you take that crap from some office jockey!

Now you send a REGISTERED letter to that rep and tell him/her that this staffer has completely offended you not to mention that this is NOT how the rep's staff should be acting!

Etc............you will do your best to knock him/her off the pedistal if this is how you are going to be treated as a constitutent!

Don't let this screw up get away with those actions!

REGISTERED letters mean business, Saw.
And.........let them know that this "registered" letter will be going to the Editor{s} if you are ever treated that way again.

.

Originally Posted by olivermyboy

Is there any way to get a nationwide petition started to show support for a repeal of the birthright citizenship law? Repeal is favored by almost everyone!

This is going to be disasterous when these babies reach adulthood and bring their families in through chain migration. I am tired of small groups ruling the majority through intimidation, etc...

Here is another example..although not mexican, this just shows that our country is not our country any longer...

NEW YORK (AP) -- After coming under fire for denying a Chinese-American infant a $25,000 prize in a New Year's baby contest because her mother was not a legal U.S. resident, the Toys "R" Us company said that it had reversed its decision.

The company said Saturday evening it would award each of the three babies in the grand prize pool of the "First Baby of the Year Sweepstakes" a $25,000 savings bond. Toys "R" Us is the parent company of Babies "R" Us, which sponsored the contest.

Toys "R" Us, which opened its first mainland China store less than a month ago, changed its mind after Chinese-American advocates protested and the story was reported in ethnic newspapers and The New York Times among other outlets.

"We love all babies," the company said in a written statement Saturday. "Our sweepstakes was intended to welcome the first baby of 2007 and prepare for its future. We deeply regret that this sweepstakes became a point of controversy."

The prize was originally supposed to go to Yuki Lin, who was born at the stroke of midnight at New York Downtown Hospital, according to hospital officials.

She won a random drawing with two other babies for the $25,000 savings bond, said Toys "R" Us spokeswoman Kathleen Waugh. The Wayne, New Jersey, company had said it would go to the first American baby born in 2007.

Yuki was born an American citizen. But the company disqualified her because "the sweepstakes administrator was informed that the mother of the baby born at New York Downtown Hospital was not a legal resident of the United States," Waugh said.

Although promotional materials called for "all expectant New Year's mothers" to apply, Waugh said eligibility rules required babies' mothers to be legal residents. Many sweepstakes have such requirements, Waugh said.

Attempts to reach Yuki's parents, Yan Zhu Liu and Han Lin, 22, were unsuccessful Saturday. Their immigration status was not clear.

The original prize was instead awarded to runner-up Jayden Swain, born 19 seconds after midnight at Northeast Georgia Medical Center in Gainesville, Georgia. The third baby in the running was born in Bay Shore, New York, to a couple from El Salvador.

Chinese-American advocates had complained that the toy company's decision smacked of second-class citizenship. They said the prize was supposed to be for the child, not the mother.

Problem: Children born on US soil have automatic citizenship, even though parents are illegal. Constitution is protecting the children, but where does it state it protects the parent?

Solution 1: Send child back with parent and when child is old enough to provide for himself/herself can back to live in the US, if they choose to. Why does it mean a child born here has to stay here? I seen many US citizens in foreign land with their children, but didn't have to leave their children behind just in case they can't be provided for.

Solution 2: Add an, Amendment with a new law, to stop automatic citizenship without proof of resident or citizenship. Also make the country the illgal came from flip the bill...or make the parents pay for it. Maybe then they will stop working for peanuts to drive down our replusive pay at work. I swear when I don't pay my bills I get people calling to remind me to pay what is owed.

This brings me to now wonder how are prices on living going up when our pay is decreasing or stayed the same for 12 years in some area. Remember that bust at that meat packing plant with the illegals? The pay 10 years ago used to be $19 an hour and was recently paying workers $9 an hour now...it doesn't make logical sense at all. I still not sure if the illegals are back there now, because there was an issue about children needing to taken care of and they let them go, to be back at work. What about US citizens who are homeless and having children who needing to get work to provide for them?

I'm going now, I got a headache......

The 14th amendment does not need to be repelled but interpreted as it is meant to be or it needs to be changed. We have to make our voiced heard on this matter, as I believe it is one of the main reasons that draws illegal to enter this country illegally. There are many other reason and we need to make our voiced heard.

NO EARNED AMNESTY;
NO GUEST WORKER'S PROGRAM LEADING TO CITIZENSHIP;'
NO AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP TO CHILDREN BORN TO ILLEGALS;
NO FREE SERVICES FOR ILLEGALS

Citizenship and the children of tourists and illegal immigrants
1. The provisions in Section 1 have been interpreted to the effect that children born on United States soil, with very few exceptions, are U.S. citizens. This type of guarantee—legally termed jus soli, or "right of the territory"— does not exist in most of Western Europe or the Middle East, although it is part of English common law and is common in the Americas. The phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof indicates that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship. Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (189. Elk v. Wilkins established that Indian tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisidiction of the United States. Children born to these Indian tribes therefore did not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Indian tribes that paid taxes were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens by an earlier Act of Congress.
In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners (in that case, Chinese citizens) who were lawfully residing in the United States and who were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power, was a citizen of the United States.Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are not "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]", and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment:
Children born to foreign diplomats;
Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States;
Children born to Native Americans who are members of tribes not taxed (these were later given full citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
The following persons born in the United States are explicitly citizens:
Children born to US citizens;
Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people and obeying its laws. The Court in Wong Kim Ark did not explicitly decide whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (it was not necessary to answer this question since Wong Kim Ark's parents were legally present in the United States at the time of his birth). However, the Supreme Court's later ruling in Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 stated that illegal immigrants are "within the jurisdiction" of the states in which they reside, and added in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."
This implies that the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants qualify for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed,either through legislation or a constitutional amendment. The proposed changes are usually one of the following:
The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen.
The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident The child should have at least one parent who is lawfully present in the United States.
For example, Representative Nathan Deal, Republican of Georgia, introduced legislation in 2005 to that would provide that U.S.-born children would be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (and therefore entitled to automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment) only if at least one parent were a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. [2].
Similarly, Representative Ron Paul of Texas has introduced a constitutional amendment that would deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident [3].
Neither of these measures has come to a vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... immigrants

Once this is turned off then we remove a powerful tool of theirs to take us over. This need to be over turned.

Originally Posted by dyehard39

the Supreme Court's later ruling in Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 stated that illegal immigrants are "within the jurisdiction" of the states in which they reside, and added in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

This case was about minor illegal aliens receiving an education, not anchor babies. The Supreme Court extended 14th Amendment protection to minor illegal aliens, this was not a ruling on automatic citizenship. "within the jurisdiction" is entirely different than "under the (complete) jurisdiction" which is what was required by the authors of the 14th Amendment to obtain birthright citizenship.

The problem is most politicians at the Federal level are too corrupt to end the current incorrect interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The best way to get action on this is to petition State legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention to correct it.

33 States acting together can call a Constitutional Convention on their own, they need no permission to do so from the Federal Government. Although I suspect in reality that if 33 States did this, the Federal Government would probably begrudgingly act on the matter.

Any suggestions on who we can work with to begin petitioning States to call a Constitutional Convention?