Posted on 09/16/2007 5:29:00 PM PDT by SmithL
The bill ( H.R.1940 ) is what America wants and needs today. It is time for appreciation and encouragement letters for the cosponsors (90) and Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-9] who introduced the bill. Also, it is time to send encouragement letters for the rest of the so called 'representatives' to join the cosponsors.
Here is the list of the cosponsors:
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 9/4/2007
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 5/9/2007
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 5/9/2007
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 6/20/2007
Rep Baker, Richard H. [LA-6] - 5/1/2007
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 6/20/2007
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 7/19/2007
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] - 4/19/2007
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] - 5/3/2007
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] - 8/3/2007
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] - 5/9/2007
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] - 5/1/2007
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 8/3/2007
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] - 9/4/2007
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 7/18/2007
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 9/4/2007
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 6/5/2007
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] - 8/2/2007
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 4/25/2007
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 5/9/2007
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 5/1/2007
Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] - 7/24/2007
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] - 4/25/2007
Rep Davis, David [TN-1] - 4/25/2007
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 4/26/2007
Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 5/3/2007
Rep Drake, Thelma D. [VA-2] - 4/25/2007
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 5/23/2007
Rep Everett, Terry [AL-2] - 8/3/2007
Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] - 6/5/2007
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 5/9/2007
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 9/4/2007
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] - 4/26/2007
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 9/4/2007
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 4/25/2007
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 6/5/2007
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 5/3/2007
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 4/24/2007
Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] - 4/26/2007
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] - 8/3/2007
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] - 5/24/2007
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 5/1/2007
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 8/2/2007
Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] - 4/25/2007
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] - 4/26/2007
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 5/9/2007
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 5/17/2007
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 6/27/2007
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 8/3/2007
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 7/24/2007
Rep Kuhl, John R. "Randy", Jr. [NY-29] - 9/4/2007
Rep Linder, John [GA-7] - 5/9/2007
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] - 4/19/2007
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 8/3/2007
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 5/3/2007
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 5/9/2007
Rep McHugh, John M [NY-23] - 8/2/2007
Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [CA-25] - 4/25/2007
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] - 6/5/2007
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 5/17/2007
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 6/15/2007
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] - 8/3/2007
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 9/4/2007
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] - 5/1/2007
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 6/5/2007
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 5/17/2007
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 7/19/2007
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 7/19/2007
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 9/4/2007
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 6/22/2007
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 4/25/2007
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 7/19/2007
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] - 7/19/2007
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] - 9/4/2007
Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] - 8/3/2007
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 5/1/2007
Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] - 7/27/2007
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 5/3/2007
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 9/4/2007
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 7/19/2007
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 5/9/2007
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 6/15/2007
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 4/25/2007
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 4/25/2007
Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] - 8/3/2007
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 5/1/2007
Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] - 5/9/2007
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 4/25/2007
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 9/4/2007
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 5/1/2007
Reference: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01940:@@@P
I think your wording is fine, but I would go a step further and not include children of people on temporary visas. They just so happen to be here legally and they get the perk of their kid being a citizen? I don’t think so.
If you’re correct in your interpretation, I have to say it’s a small price to pay to get control of a huge problem. While I sympathize with someone caught up in that, I gotta say, the issue of illegal anchor babies is so massive it will probably be painful to correct.
susie
If the Mexican Ambassador to the United States gets drunk and runs you over, he can't be arrested for drunk driving. That's because he is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. In order for him to be prosecuted in the US, the Mexican government would first have to waive his diplomatic immunity. Also, because he is not subject to US jurisdiction, any kid his wife has while in the US is not a US citizen.
Now, if a wetback gets drunk and runs you over, they can and should throw the book at him. They should because he ran you over, obviously. And they can, but only because he's subject to US jurisdiction. Unfortunately, however, that has the well known anchor baby side effect — any kids his woman drops are automatically US citizens because they were born in the US and were subject to US jurisdicition, just as the 14th prescribes.
These congress critters are wasting their time. They need to be working on an amendment to define citizenship appropriately.
Well done! Exactly.
No surprise there.
It wasn’t until the 20th Century that there was a social safety net, one that is CITIZEN (taxpayer) funded and those who come here to send their paychecks back HOME make us of (illegally).
An untruth right off the bat.
Such blatant historical illiteracy is embarrassing.
But the illegals are here just doing jobs lazy Americans are too good to do, right? They just want to work to ship the cash out of our economic system and prop up a socialist (communist) nation, good `ol mee-he-coo, right? I was promised that this has nothing to do with voting, they are just "guest workers," right? Illegal alien mexican citizens are not voting in U.S. elections, ... right?
Like the "domestic violence" laws that violate an American Citizen's 2nd Ammendment right? Those ex-post-facto laws?
Nope. It says nothing about AB's having U.S. Citizenship and the SC has already commented on it from a case in Texas. Of course such mere facts will not even slow down the libs from their screaching "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!" "14th Ammendment!"
We are all stumbling around this thing and it has already been commented on by the Supreme Court! This is the actual text of their commentary on the actual meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which the libs all wanna scream about but the SC commentary is what they never talk about.
It is in regards to the 14th amendment case which examined the issue of equal protection. Specifically, weather the State of Texas can legally withhold funds to schools to cover the extra costs of education illegal alien children and children of illegal aliens.
If one actually reads the entirety of Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 the question of "birthright NON-citizenship"is right there.
News/Activism 06/23/2007 10:01:07 AM CDT · 97 of 104
“...subject to the jurisdiction thereof" Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202
Ok, let's just have a good look here...
" The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. "
Sorry, but the SC said nothing about the issue of are they or are they not citizens. It refers to Supreme Court of the United States striking down a state statute denying funding for education to children OF illegal aliens. It does NOT say they are citizens.
In fact, it does state the following...
" To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. 1251, 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen. See, e. g., 8 U.S.C. 1252, 1253(h), 1254 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV)."
Clearly, anchor babies are NOT CITIZENS.
This is made absolutely clear further in the case...
" Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellees' siblings, (thus including them in the defintion of and as “appellees”) are not excluded from the Texas schools. Nor does Texas discriminate against appellees because of their Mexican origin or citizenship."
This is not saying that Children born in this country to illegal alien parents are U.S. citizens! It is clearly saying that they are MEXICAN CITIZENS.
one more time...
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...
Jacob Howard, 1866
*************
Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellees' >>> siblings,<<< (thus including them as “appellees”) are not excluded from the Texas schools. Nor does Texas discriminate against appellees because of their Mexican origin or citizenship.
In other words the appellees children (siblings) are also considered appellees in the case and the appellees of the case are described by the Court as Mexican citizens.
Very clear and very simple. And it has been there all along.
But the libs are really good a pushing a catch phrase and "subject to the jurisdiction" from the 14th amendment is it on this issue.
All the SC has to do to settle this ENTIRE dispute was simply state that according to the XYZ (14th) Amendment the children of illegal aliens born in the u.S. are citizens of the u.S., therefore this case brought by The State of Texas has no merit.
Well, guess what those Supreme Court Justices did NOT say?
I do not believe that the Supreme Court just "kinda forgot" to address that aspect of the issue in the light of the fact that they are specifically comparing illegal aliens right to protection under the 14th amendment to American Citizens right to protection under the 14th amendment.
IOW, no sale, AB's are not American Citizens.
THAT IS THE TROUBLE, THEY DON’T. THEY LEAVE THEIR CHILDREN HERE AND GO HOME THEN COME BACK AGAIN....
The Sac Bee morons obviously prefer illegal immigration anarchy. Force them to live in an illegal alien dominated neighborhood for a few weeks and see if they think the same
HR 1940 is an attempt to overturn the Anglo-American common law principle, going back to 1608, of birthright citizenship for all people born here. It would repeal a key part of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which confirmed that principle: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Lungren claims that babies born of foreign parents who have not sworn allegiance to the United States aren't subject to U.S. jurisdiction, a non sequitur. Children born here are subject to U.S. laws. Their allegiance comes with birth and upbringing here, not their parents' allegiance.
I'm so sick of the lies and half truths of the pro-illegals. When a child is born here to an illegal immigrant, it is a citizen of the parents home country. Just as would be the child born to an American vacationing on, say, the south of France.
Birthright citizenship is not a mistake. The mistake is letting illegals break the law to have a baby here. If we enforced the law about illegal aliens we wouldn’t have any anchor babies. This is not a fix to the problem at hand.
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.