Thread: Wealthy/Emerging Nations -Eliminated Birthright Citizenship

Originally Posted by StarshipTrooper

Originally Posted by vmonkey56

Illegals were never qualified, and this scheme started generations ago. So were should the line be drawn?

Any new Anchors born after a certain date should not receive birthright citizenship.

Remember too if the illegal alien parents are deported-----------most of the time the extant minor age (and some adults ones as well) will follow.

Dates will make no difference. Lets face it - no matter what the cutoff date is, illegal aliens will use several aliases and phony id's to stay here.

Why I say that is how far does one go back in disenfranchising Anchors? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? 50 years? I see way too opportunity for mischief there against innocent people who qualified under the law at the time.

You go back to the last Amnesty, Reagans.
That would be the earliest time the new illegals came here and dropped the kids.
There have already been 5 or 6 of them, it has NOT EVER WORKED!
It just bogs us down with a 3rd world cultures, that suck us taxpayers dry.

Originally Posted by vortex

Whatever happened to defending our national sovreignty?

Bush and Obama happened ..... sadly.
A RINO and an ass are taking down a nation, on purpose.

Originally Posted by StarshipTrooper

Originally Posted by vmonkey56

Illegals were never qualified, and this scheme started generations ago. So were should the line be drawn?

Any new Anchors born after a certain date should not receive birthright citizenship.

Remember too if the illegal alien parents are deported-----------most of the time the extant minor age (and some adults ones as well) will follow.

The problem is if we try to deport the illegal parents of the anchors, then the pro-amnesty advocates start screaming that we're "separating families". Now that wouldn't bother me in the least, I'd be happy to drive the illegal parents to the border myself. But the open-borders crowd starts crying, in the phony name of "civil rights", when it is really because of their own self-interests. And unfortunately our traitorous gov and DHS listens to them before they listen to the American citizens.

Originally Posted by builditnow

Originally Posted by StarshipTrooper

Originally Posted by vmonkey56

Illegals were never qualified, and this scheme started generations ago. So were should the line be drawn?

Any new Anchors born after a certain date should not receive birthright citizenship.

Remember too if the illegal alien parents are deported-----------most of the time the extant minor age (and some adults ones as well) will follow.

The problem is if we try to deport the illegal parents of the anchors, then the pro-amnesty advocates start screaming that we're "separating families". Now that wouldn't bother me in the least, I'd be happy to drive the illegal parents to the border myself. But the open-borders crowd starts crying, in the phony name of "civil rights", when it is really because of their own self-interests. And unfortunately our traitorous gov and DHS listens to them before they listen to the American citizens.

I know what you mean.

That stated: with our economy continuing to tank.............the pro illegal apologists really need to shut their mouths.

As for separating families: the hypocrisy is astounding to say the least since many an illegal leaves behind another family back in Mexico, etc-----------yet, that is perfectly acceptable, rhetorically speaking?

Don't separate families....
SEND the whole damn FAMILY!!!!!!!!!

I would definitely rescind the birthright citizenship of those born to IAs that arrived after the 1986 Amnesty. They can go to their parents country of origin and with the education that was provided by the USA and work to fix said country. The costs to American citizens that 'they' caused need not be repaid. Consider those costs a parting gift.

Originally Posted by vortex

Whatever happened to defending our national sovreignty?

Ask Bush and Obama

starshiptrooper wrote:

Ask Bush and Obama

I think that the answer is to ask Congress.

[quote]http://www.heritage.org/Research/Gov...form/wm925.cfm

December 1, 2005
Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution
by Edward Erler
WebMemo #925
The following is an entry concerning the first section of Amendment 14 of the Constitution as found in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.


Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens of the states were automatically considered citizens of the United States. In 1857, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision had held that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to settle the question of the citizenship of the newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment made United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative. The primacy of federal citizenship made it impossible for states to prevent former slaves from becoming United States citizens by withholding state citizenship. States could no longer prevent any black from United States citizenship or from state citizenship either.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had previously asserted that “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.â€

One day in 1954, Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards picked up a newspaper in Big Spring, Texas, and saw some startling news. The government was launching an all-out drive to oust illegal aliens from the United States.

The orders came straight from the top, where the new president, Dwight Eisenhower, had put a former West Point classmate, Gen. Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement.

General Swing's fast-moving campaign soon secured America's borders - an accomplishment no other president has since equaled. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s.

Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.

"Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!" Edwards says.

Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, "they'd be on top of this in a minute."

William Chambers, another '50s veteran, agrees. "They could do a pretty good job" sealing the border.

Edwards says: "When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce."

While Congress debates building a fence on the border, these veterans say other actions should have higher priority.

1. End the current practice of taking captured Mexican aliens to the border and releasing them. Instead, deport them deep into Mexico, where return to the US would be more costly.

2. Crack down hard on employers who hire illegals. Without jobs, the aliens won't come.

3. End "catch and release" for non-Mexican aliens. It is common for illegal migrants not from Mexico to be set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Few show up.

4. End entitlement and benefit programs for illegal aliens.

The Patrol veterans say enforcement could also be aided by a legalized guest- worker program that permits Mexicans to register in their country for temporary jobs in the US. Eisenhower's team ran such a program. It permitted up to 400,000 Mexicans a year to enter the US for various agriculture jobs that lasted for 12 to 52 weeks.