Skip to comments.State lawmakers preparing citizenship legislation (no citizenship to children of illegals)
Posted on 10/19/2010 12:30:31 PM PDT by Justaham
Lawmakers in at least 14 states are collaborating on proposed legislation to deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, according to lawmakers, including the sponsor of Arizona's 2010 law targeting illegal immigration.
"We're taking a leadership role on things that need to be fixed in America. We can't get Congress to do it," Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce, of Mesa, said Tuesday. "It's a national work group so that we have model legislation that we know will be successful, that meets the constitutional criteria."
The efforts by the state legislators come amid calls to change the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. Supporters cite costs to taxpayers for services provided to illegal immigrants and their children.
Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, the founder of a national group of legislators critical of illegal immigration, said the 14th Amendment "greatly incentives foreign invaders to violate our border and our laws." He had a news conference Tuesday in Harrisburg, Pa., on the multistate endeavor.
The effort could run afoul of the language in the 14th Amendment and lead to a court battle over the constitutionality of the law. But Metcalfe said providing birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is an "ongoing distortion and twisting" of the amendment.
Metcalfe's office said lawmakers in at least 12 other states besides Arizona and Pennsylvania said they were making their own announcements about working on the citizenship legislation. Those other states: Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah. Legislators from a total of 41 states are involved in a Metcalfe-founded group concerned with immigration issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
What are they talking about? US Citizenship comes from the US. The most they could try to do is deny issuing ‘proof’ of birth.
I'll believe it when it's been passed into law for the entire nation.
Take not that California is never involved in things like this. The state legislature doesn’t have the cajones to get involved.
No birthright citizenship for aliens. No federal involvement in insurance, medical care, education, marriage, etc. Vast restrictions on appellate jurisdiction of federal court system. Term limits for federal judges based on confirmation elections (which would be a lot of fun wouldn't it, bwahahahaha).
That's just off the top of my head. No doubt others have their favorites.
...which will be promptly overruled by Judge (fill in the blank) of the (fill in the blank) Circuit Court.
Why does there need to be a constitutional amendment?
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
By the way, has anybody looked at Section 3?
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
It seems to me that most liberals in Congress should have been disqualified for office by their treasonous activities.
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, for example.
Suppose someone was born in the U.S. and lived here his whole life. Do you really want to deport him because his parents are illegal? Punishing children for the sins of their parents makes me uncomfortable. I don’t think there should be automatic citizenship for someone born in the U.S. to illegals, but I do think there ought to be a path to citizenship for people who were born here, obey the law, and are not a drain on society.
Actually, it doesn't. It has been misinterpreted for decades.
Read the Constitution throughly and very carefully by keeping in mind that setting a rule for something does not make the federal government necessarily the author of individual citizenship.
You forgot at the end ". . . who was appointed by Clinton/Carter/Obama"
It's my guess that they are working on US law, not state law. The article is not clear.
So the illegals cross the boarder and have their kids under your 'legislation'. Do you keep the kids in the US as a drain on our society and kick the parents out or what?
Frankly, the fantasy that the Constitution somehow makes citizens out of transient criminal offspring needs to be dispelled by whatever means necessary.
We can’t support these people anymore. This isn’t about someone like that, but that there are children being used as anchors for the rest of a family of practically twenty. The problem is that the child isn’t the drain, but the key to fat checks and benefits.
That is not under discussion here. Focus on the issue - Should that child be considered a US citizen?
Many foreign children are born here and live here legally many years, but are not automatically citizens, for example, children of diplomats, entertainers (William Shatner, Michael Fox, Richard Burton), athletes (the entire NHL), etc.
And suppose that just before he is born, his parent rob a bank for millions of dollars. He grows up in wealth and style. Should he be "punished" by the loss of his lavish lifestyle when when his parents are finally caught and the money is recovered?
The problem is that the parents can't be deported because it would separate the family and he must be provided with government benefits because he is a citizen. Fix those problems and I have no problem with making him a citizen at 18 or 21.
“We can’t get Congress to do it,” “
Waiting for Congress was a huge mistake. We were stupid to let them run things to such an extent for us without realizing taht they would of course abuse it.
His family is also exploiting him. He’s being used to get checks and benefits that should go to him alone. but they are mooching off of him, including his extended family that decides to go along for the ride.
“WHAT IS A PATRIOT?”
PATRIOTS are not “Revolutionaries” trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
PATRIOTS are “Counter-Revolutionaries” trying to prevent the government of the United States from overthrowing the Constitution of the United States. - Unknown Author
What brings the PATRIOTS out of the woodwork?
When the constitutional process, the system of checks and balances set up by the Founders, has not just been thrown out of kilter, it has been thrown out the window. These socialist maneuvers are what attracts PATRIOTS to the streets of America.
Actually, it does. Those claiming misinterpretation are misinterpreting it.
Yes! The more states we can get to enact this common-sense legislation, the more we can cut the slithery legs out from under the creeping fascism that has gone so far in this country.
Just say NO to a commie takeover of America.
>>are not a drain on society.<<
Please explain your definition of this “not a drain on society.”
I think it is akin to those who interprit the yellow fringe on american flags and being an issue inside a courtroom. it is meaningless. Born in the USA and you are a citizen.
History and the reason for that amendment support that plain meaning.
Once they turn 18 and are adults in their own right, they can go back “home” and come in the FRONT door like all the other LEGAL immigrants.
Thanks Civ; BFL.
This will be a repeat of the AZ anti-illegals law. States should simply pass these laws and completely ignore the feds, including their lawsuits. Don’t even respond or file answers to them. Really, when you think about it, what can they do about it without starting a civil war?
Middle column, bottom third of the column. "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."
The sentence is imprecise. It's the written record of what someone said, and sometimes people speak loosely. If you read "aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors...." as the expansion of "foreigners", then that is correct. If you read each element "foreigners", "aliens", "who belong to the families..." as separate and definitive, then it's not correct.
Fortunately, we don't have to rely on this sentence. It is not law. It's a speech. The actual meaning of "under the jurisdiction" is settled law and it has a known meaning. It does not exclude children of aliens, legal or otherwise.
"Under the jurisdiction" covers anyone who is not a foreign diplomat or invading soldier. In other words, anyone who is subject to the "jurisdiction" of our laws, as diplomats and soldiers are not. Illegal aliens and their children, are.
“Suppose someone was born in the U.S. and lived here his whole life. Do you really want to deport him because his parents are illegal?”
Established law also states that babies may be murdered in the womb.
Well, at least some of the State are trying to fight back against Congress and their own State representatives that are suppose to represent their own State(s).
They could (GASP!) no longer send them federal benefits.
The writers of the fourteenth in private correspondence and interviews explicitly state that it applies only to the children of those who where once held as slaves in this nation. I doubt that there are any left that meet those requirements.
Any child born of illegal parent or parents is also an illegal. If by hook or crook he or she stays through high school, maybe even college, tuff. they along with their parents should be deported.
Upon arrival in the country of origin of the parents, the child can report to the US embassy and barring a criminal record be put at the top of the list for entry to the US. Their having been here illegally will not be held against them but will be against their parents. They will then have to satisfy the same requirements as any other immigrant to become a citizen.
Their parents can not come here to visit. Nor can green cards be issued to relatives.
Any one saying that the fourteenth grants citizenship to any one born here is shilling for the progressives.
Illegal aliens and their children, are.
They are not. MLO you are wrong!
They already HAVE citizenship — of whatever country their parents are citizens.
Offering them some sort of short-cut to US citizenship because their parents are criminals makes no sense. You say the kids have done nothing wrong, but they are FAR from ideal candidates for citizenship. They were, after all, raised by criminals in a household that did not value American laws. Every child learns its sense of right and wrong from its parents, and these children are necessarily deficient in that sense.
They should be rounded up and sent home along with their parents. Their parents should be barred from ever applying for a return to the US because they are KNOWN CRIMINALS. Their kids should not be held liable for their parents crimes, but all that means is that they can wait in line with their fellow countrymen, and given no special preference just because their parents were criminals barred from ever visiting the US again. In fact, they should be denied any way to visit the US that is not tied to an intent to become a legal citizen — no student visas or tourist visas, only a work visa where the employer has posted a million dollar bond — because their upbringing in the US would make it to easy for them to overstay a visa and disappear into the population.
The parents committed crimes by coming here illegally. I sincerely doubt they care about their children other than to use them as a reason NOT to be deported.
We put people in prison all the time — should we agonize over that just because they have children?
The fact is, felons don’t give a damn about their kids otherwise they would not commit crimes and be sent to prison. The same goes for illegal aliens, only in their case the whole family gets deported, as there is no cruelty in keeping families together, now is there?
I don’t buy their cries, “But we did it for our children”. Bull poop!
Right now the law is written so that custody follows the parents, not the child.
When the illegal parents are deported, the minor child, REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP, goes with the parents.
The US citizens is free to return upon reaching 18. HOWEVER any children born of that citizen are only citizens of the usa IF the parent US citizen has spent ten years in the USA.
born in the US means US citizen.
That said, the law need to be changed. Constitution or mere law. The original reason for the 14th automatically granting citizenship is no longer present. It is also from an era where STATES controlled immigration.
At first glance I would say this is a smokescreen and a fake, meant to accomplish the opposite of the entitled purpose. Grandstanding. Bullshiite.
In point of fact, the 14th Amendment DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form grant citizenship to the children of those in the country illegally. In point of fact, neither does it offer citizenship to the children of visitors here legally.
We are dealing with a generous custom, which must now be ended; nothing more. It can be ended tonight by nothing more than an executive order.
What the 14 state legislatures ought to be doing is insisting that Presidential candidates be "Natural Born Citizens," as required in the COTUS. Once and for all, that is what needs to be defined, with the original intent of the Founders clearly in mind.
By denying the present POTUS a p[lace on state ballots, which is clearly within their power, this definition can be settled by the SCOTUS. Has to be done, even if the lesbo-commies now seated toss the case for Obama.
Amen, and well said. If we ever actually did it, of course there would be reams of sob stories in the media. “Poor, poor Juan or Maria...born in the US...it’s the only home they’ve ever known...now they are cruelly denied citizenship, wrenched from the only home they’ve ever known, deported by this hateful, racist country,” blah, blah, blah.
But it MUST be done. We must be strong. We must stand firm. We must do it.
And the states can quit sending money to the feds. If the entire IRS wants to descend on these taxpayers, I guess the taxpayers will be waiting for them.
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.
We must follow the law. If we don’t, this nation will fly apart from anarchy.
For me, the most visible cases of lawlessness is the proliferation of illegal aliens throughout the land.
I’m pretty torn on this issue. On the one hand, if our government did it’s job, then this action would not be an issue. In addition, I am willing to admit that our Founders were much more wise than I can even imagine, so I am very hesitent to changing the USSC.
On the other hand, the gov is neglecting to do their duty.
“The actual meaning of “under the jurisdiction” is settled law and it has a known meaning.”
I appreciate your postings and was hoping to see a couple of FReepers debate the issue. I do need the learnin.
That said, your phrase above is meaningless to me. We could also state thet “seperation of church and state” and “legal abortion” are also settled law as interpretations of the USSC. I’d prefer to default to the original intent.