Posted on 01/02/2009 10:31:00 PM PST by wac3rd
I want to call your attention to a statewide initiative in California that may change the debate on the automatic citizenship that is wrongly bestowed upon children born to illegal aliens and foreign visitors in the United States. The initiative—The California Taxpayer Protection Act—is being planned for the June 2010 California ballot. This may seem like a distant point on the horizon, but it’s really not when you consider the herculean efforts necessary to secure a spot on the ballot in the state. Supporters are being sought from across the nation for this important initiative.
Initiative Background
The initiative is sponsored by Taxpayer Revolution and authored by Ted Hilton, a scholar of Constitutional Law and expert on the 14th Amendment’s original intent. The measure has three major provisions that would:
• Create a second type of California birth certificate for children born to illegal aliens and others who are not permanent residents. The current certificate would be limited to children with at least one parent who submits an affidavit stating that he or she is a citizen or a permanent legal resident (Social Security Number verified);
• Restrict illegal alien parents from applying for child-only CalWORKS benefits (TANF) for their U.S. born child by requiring lawful presence of all applicants; and
• Limit public benefits by requiring a signed affidavit under penalty of perjury that one is a citizen or qualified alien, and using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to verify legal residency.
Birth mothers who are not citizens or legal residents would be required to: apply for a birth certificate in person; provide complete identity including means of support; submit three passport type photographs; and be fingerprinted. All of this information would be provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at sayanythingblog.com ...
For the AFIRE ping list
As noble as it is this iniiative will go nowhere because the language around this issue is totally dominated by PC. It will be defeated because, if you are against it...
1) You are a RACIST
2) You hate ‘the children’
3) This is ‘hate speech’
4) You hate ‘the poor’
5) Supporting this makes you guilty of ‘international war crimes’
6) You’re a racist (but I repeat myself)
Did I miss anything?
CORRECTION TO MY LAST POST...
If you are FOR it...
(hey, beer will do that to ya...)
Bring it on!! :-) Can’t wait.
It’ll win and be overturned by liberal judges. *yawn* There’s no democracy in California.
Did I miss anything?
You might have missed this... Or maybe I did. It happened Monday night.
http://www.minutemenamericandefense.us/BrutalAttack.html
And her husband was shot a few days before her beating.
And La Raza will publicize the names of all supporters and donors and you will be shamed as racists into quitting your jobs and making apologies.
For it/against it. It works either way.
Beer truth.
I agree with this only if it is not in our constitution. Isn’t being born in U.S. make you a citizen? We always say “don’t tinker with the constitution”. Well that means including things we don’t like too. However, if this is not in the constitution than I say get rid of it.
The 14th Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to provide “birthright citizenship,” that all children born in the United States, with minor exceptions, are automatically citizens of the United States.
Some, apparently including the author of this piece, believe that birthright citizenship should not be given to such children. I’ve generally found them to be vague on whether they think the 14th is wrong on this point and should be repealed or modified, or whether the 14th has been misapplied. In any case, this interpretation of the 14th is not a recent one. Goes back into the 19th century.
In any case, I fail to see how state action of this type, even if allowed to stand, could have any effect on US citizenship.
2) You hate ‘the children’No I love children girl children between the ages of 18 and 24.
That makes me so angry I can’t even comment on it because not only would I be banned but I’d be arrested. Thanks for the link.
I understand the anger but I didn’t post that link to ruin your day or your moment.
Here’s a funny but poignant story.
The train was quite crowded, and a U. S. Marine walked the entire length looking for a seat, but the only seat left was taken by a well dressed, middle-aged, French woman’s poodle.
The war-weary Marine asked, ‘Ma’am, may I have that seat?’
The French woman just sniffed and said to no one in particular,’Americans are so rude. My little Fifi is using that seat.’
The Marine walked the entire train again, but the only seat left was under that dog.
‘Please, ma’am. May I sit down? I’m very tired.’
She snorted, ‘Not only are you Americans rude, you are also arrogant!’
This time the Marine didn’t say a word; he just picked up the little dog, tossed it out the train window, and sat down.
The woman shrieked, ‘Someone must defend my honour! This American should be put in his place!’
An English gentleman sitting nearby spoke up, ‘Sir, you Americans seem to have a penchant for doing the wrong thing. You hold the fork in the wrong hand. You drive your cars on the wrong side of the road. And now, sir, you
seem to have thrown the wrong bitch out the window.’
Despite the clumsy tag left by Shawna Forde’s attackers obviously intended to direct attention to mara salvatrucha, who may or may not have been involved, the real culprits are our politicians.
Let us never forget that, either.
That Ms. Forde felt the need to start looking into drug smuggling herself while our elected officials, with the full weight and bearing of our government at their disposal sit by and do nothing about the invasion, is a measure of Ms. Forde’s character and a clear indication of the level of both major Party’s despicability.
Agreed. And thanks for that story!
It wouldn’t be the last time the Supreme Court proved they were human.
From http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
May 30 began with Senator Howard proposing to add the citizenship clause to § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as follows: “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”[138]
This language was designed to settle the issue raised in Dred Scott — that is, who are citizens and thus have the bundle of rights appertaining to citizenship.
After a raucous debate over making Indians, coolies, and gypsies citizens, the Senate passed Howard’s language.[139]
***************
I believe the key phrase included in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
***************
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.
**************
The United States, during those days of tumult, were arguing over the right of freed men to bear arms in order to protect their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The original purpose and intent was to clarify and strengthen our Republic.
Durng our modern tumult, the Socialist practice of taxing Americans to provide financial support for the invaders health and education because of the timely arrival of a son or daughter born by chance or design on our soil undermines, rather than strengthens our Republic.
The stated intention spelled out in the second sentence,
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges...”, could be interpreted as cause to eliminate the welfare benefits of those invaders of our Nation who gleefully accept the free money our political leaders so freely dispense.
My humble opinion.
Quite correct. Under common law this phrase refers to enemy invaders of the country, and to those with diplomatic immunity. All others are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the Crown, or the nation that fills a similar role.
I think a good case can be made that unlimited birthright citizenship isn't a good idea. Unfortunately, the Supremes have ruled for well over a century that this is exactly what the 14th Amendment says, and for that matter that the rest of the Constitution, as interpreted in the light of common law, also says.
To get rid of birthright citizenship will probably require an amendment.
Another dumb Calipornia mobocratic “ballot initiative” that will be spanked down by any federal judge as being in conflict with the 14th Amendment. Sorry populists, although I agree with your intentions, I can’t see this getting past over 100 years of American judicial opinion.
BTT!
Ending the illegal alien birthright citizenship is the only thing that is going to put a halt to this invasion. The courts will hassle the voters over this, but it must be done.
“And La Raza will publicize the names of all supporters and donors and you will be shamed as racists into quitting your jobs and making apologies.”
What? We should be intimidated into being quiet? Don’t think so, not this time. All the more reason. Americans STILL don’t like being threatened.
“I agree with this only if it is not in our constitution. Isn’t being born in U.S. make you a citizen? We always say “don’t tinker with the constitution”. Well that means including things we don’t like too. However, if this is not in the constitution than I say get rid of it.”
It needs the constitutional test. According to the authors of the 14th amendment...aliens cannot produce a citizen!
“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law 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.”
Senator Jacob Howard,
co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
“An English gentleman sitting nearby spoke up, ‘Sir, you Americans seem to have a penchant for doing the wrong thing. You hold the fork in the wrong hand. You drive your cars on the wrong side of the road. And now, sir, you
seem to have thrown the wrong bitch out the window.”
LOL! Sweet.
Aunt B, Thank you for that quote. I was having a difficult time finding it.
Because it falls under the heading of Common Sense I doubt it would stand the scrutiny or the attacks of the NWO/socialist minded politicians of today.
But it’s nice to know it’s still out there.
Sherman Logan, the citizenship issue attached to the 14th Amendment looks like it was addressed as an afterthought that, in those days, required only anecdotal support at the congressional level.
Can you offer any insight into why the Supreme Court would take it into a different direction?
Domari Nolo, sister.
It will be tossed as a Federal jurisdiction.
bump!
The Terry Anderson Show...
Tonight Terry’s guest will be Patty Compean...
Call Terry LIVE 9-10 PM PST at (866) 870-57521
LIVE stream at http://krla870.townhall.com/
http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=listenliv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2158789/posts
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/47978
Yeah...I was thinking the same thing. The author of this initiative, Mr. Ted Hilton, might want to take necessary cover to protect himself and his family.
That’s what it’s coming down to folks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.