Posted on 09/16/2007 5:29:00 PM PDT by SmithL
From its beginnings as a nation, the United States differed from Europe in its citizenship policies, welcoming all those born on U.S. territory as U.S. citizens.
Now Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River, and 89 other Republican members of Congress want to end the tradition of birthright citizenship. Eleven of 19 Republicans in the California congressional delegation have signed on to sponsor this terrible bill (HR 1940) that would move the United States toward becoming a restrictionist nation of descent based on parentage.
In practical terms, if this bill passed, no longer could people born in the United States simply show a birth certificate to prove their citizenship.
Want a driver's license or a U.S. passport? You would not only need to dig up your birth certificate but the birth certificate, citizenship papers, green card or proof of active military service of one parent. A new bureaucracy would be necessary for determining the validity of a parent's citizenship.
Why would so-called "small government" conservatives want that kind of outcome?
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Would not be happening but for the egregious abuse of the immigration laws countenanced by the Democrats and the RINOs.
>> A new bureaucracy would be necessary for determining the validity of a parent’s citizenship... Why would so-called “small government” conservatives want that kind of outcome?
It’s unfortunate, but times changed.
Used to be, immigrants came to America to become AMERICANS.
Now, they come to milk America and send it back home, while insisting that AMERICA accomodate THEIR culture, instead of assimilating into AMERICA.
Given that attitude, it is no longer healthy for AMERICA to give anchor babies citizenship.
Yet another good thing screwed up by greedy selfish fools.
ILLEGALS GO HOME — TAKE YOUR SPAWN WITH YOU
The 14th Amendment was added nearly a hundred years after the founding of the country and "birth right" citizenship was clearly applicable ONLY to recently freed slaves "born" in the USA.
The law cases used to justify a broader reach are also limited by a number of caveats usually ignored by just about everybody.
The Supreme Court should have no problem flipping the current popular interpretation and termianating the citizenship of millions of people "born" here.
This is such an easy bill to write.
If you are in the country as an illegal alien and you give birth, your child is an illegal alien.
If your parents sneak across the border so that you can be born in America, the child will not be given US citizenship and you all will be deported after paying your medical bills in full.
” A new bureaucracy would be necessary for determining the validity of a parent’s citizenship... Why would so-called “small government” conservatives want that kind of outcome?”
Since whenis the Bee concerened about over government?
what they really want to do is bring more Dem’s into the country.
This would be great and I hope they keep up the pressure. Politicians have been afraid of getting tough on immigration and perks like this (because MSM would accuse them of racism). Anyway, if more and more people speak up, - and the polls already support tough measures - maybe presidential candidates pick up the idea.
The tide is turning.
I think this is politically viable idea pretty soon. Perhaps a 2008 conservative senate candidate is bold enough and advocates this?
Winning a senate seat with that idea would instantly make the idea mainstream and credible. It would politically be a winning message against dems since blue collar democrats and african-americans already support this strongly.
each year, an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants give birth to so-called “anchor babies”—children born to illegal immigrants and who then serve as a buffer against deporting the parent. Representative Dan Lungren (R-Calif) has introduced legislation aimed at eliminating the “anchor baby” strategy for gaining access to America by restricting birthright citizenship to children born only to those who are citizens or legal aliens. The bill was denounced by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean as “another Republican attempt to suppress Democratic votes.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Editorial from The Sacramento Bee. What a shame. It’s turned into a liberal bastion of BS like most. The first Editor of the Daily Bee, the precursor to The Sacramento Bee was John Rollin Ridge, a Cherokee and a distant cousin of mine. When he left in 1857, one of the McClatchy’s became Editor. It’s been downhill from there. I can guarantee he wouldn’t approve of this editorial or this twisted policy of jackpot babies.
It’d be nice if all it took was one bill but it just ain’t gonna happen. State bills to curb illegal immigration, for example Proposition 187 in CA and other laws/propositions in other states, are quickly neutralized by state courts via any number of clearly made-up pretenses.
But this bill arguably (and it WILL be argued if it comes to it) conflicts with Amendment 14. So instead of being exposed to any number of state-level courts, it would inevitably be appealed through the infamous Ninth Circuit (Circus) court and further appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
By the time it reaches that far, half the justices and anybody who wants to live or do business in California will be speaking Spanish as a first language anyway.
What I find most amazing about this is that there are actually nineteen Republicans in the California delegation!
We talk about constitutional traditions, and one of them is that children are not penalized for the crimes of their parents. Therefore, the proper way to handle the issue of using anchor babies to become citizens is as follows. Give the soon to be deported illegal a choice... take their child with them, and the child can return to the USA on his/her own upon reaching the age of majority, or, put the child up for adoption to a loving, legal family in the USA. I'd opt for the latter, as criminals are completely unfit to be parents.
Massive ignorance on display!
Citizenship was a State thing until the end of the War Between the States. The 14th Amendment (dubiously ratified sometime or other, but not before it was proposed!) established the current order where it is assumed that everyone born here automatically is a citizen. Even this is questionable as the wording is: "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. ..." Certainly the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," meant something to the authors and ratifiers (such as they were) of the amendment.
ML/NJ
Actually you need to show 2 types of ID, 3 types if you are claiming U.S. citizenship for your foreign-born child.
I am not sure what all the different types of ID are, it's a "column A" "column B" and "column C" list.
Some of the types are: vaccination records, school registration, baptismal certificate, school report card, bar mitzvah invitation, crap that only your grandmother saves.
Nice try with the gotcha, but we could easily afford that bureaucracy by getting rid of the DOA, EPA, HHS, Social Security, Medicare, AFDC, DOE No. 1 (Energy), DOE No. 2 (Education), Americorps, the Real ID act, the War on (some) Drugs, corporate welfare, and I could just go on and on...
It is possible to be small-government, but strong on defense and immigration control. Now go peddle your crap down at LP headquarters.
I think that your parents would be considered "under the jurisdiction of the USA" which is the language in the constitution, IIRC.
They’re getting this absolutely wrong. Then again, I’d expect nothing less from the MSM.
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.