Skip to comments.GOP majority in House will push to end 'birthright citizenship'
Posted on 11/18/2010 8:20:29 AM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON As one of its first acts, the new Congress will consider denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.
Those children, who are now automatically granted citizenship at birth, will be one of the first targets of the Republican-led House when it convenes in January.
GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, the incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees immigration, is expected to push a bill that would deny "birthright citizenship" to such children.
The measure, assailed by critics as unconstitutional, is an indication of how the new majority intends to flex its muscles on the volatile issue of illegal immigration.
The idea has a growing list of supporters, including Republican Reps. Tom McClintock of Elk Grove and Dan Lungren of Gold River, but it has aroused intense opposition, as well.
"I don't like it," said Chad Silva, statewide policy analyst for the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
The idea has a growing list of supporters, including Republican Reps. Tom McClintock of Elk GroveFYI
“As one of its first acts, the new Congress will consider denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.”
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California? If that's not an oxymoron, I don't know what is.
...no more anchor babies!!
I hope that they pass the legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which empowers Congress to enact legislation to enforce the other sections of the 14th Amendment, including Section 1’s declaration that all persons born in the United States “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens of the U.S.
Remind Americans that it is not retroactive, which is unconstitutional, and this will go more smoothly.
Too many squishy RINOs, I am glad they are trying but it will NEVER pass.
Well then he should have worded the amendment that way, shouldn't he?
Since it is not part of the text, we have some "wise latina" trying to ascertain the meaning of the amendment, and she will not look at "original intent".
They'd better have - they're dead political meat if they haven't.
“Healthy”, as in plague, leprosy, tuberculosis, dengue fever, malaria, parasites, and other exotica heretofore either unseen or eradicated in America.
How about we just end instant welfare sign-up for anyone with an illegal head of household? That way, the parasites will stop coming and stop popping out these anchor children. And while we’re at it, stop the instant Medicaid and Medicare sign up also. I’ve NEVER figured out how our social service agencies get the OK to allow them to sign up for benefits. I mean — there are LEGIONS of do-gooder social service types who constantly roll out the red carpet for these people to sign up for every program imaginable. I’ve seen it w/ my own eyes working in a health clinic as a student nurse.
The only reason many of these people make it here is due to the welfare bennies, the plentiful jobs, and the ability to live 20 to a household. Stop the jobs, bennies, and living arrangements and we stop the influx. Plus a mighty high fence.
They come for the freebies, and that’s it. They don’t give a hoot about this country in any way shape or form. As soon as they’ve looted it long enough, they run back home or send their earnings back home.
It’s all about the money — not anything closely related to a yearning to be an American. Stop the money flow, NOW.
Yep, these “natural Republicans” have yet to vote their supposed “family values” over their entitlements. Anyone who clings to this notion after decades of watching the black majority vote for democrat gimmees over their supposed social conservatism just doesn’t want to know.
Politically speaking, this is an excellent argument to take up..... in June.
Let’s prioritize folks, and unwind 0bamaCare, Stimulus, Tax Increases, etc. first. Things on which we have vast majorities of Americans behind us and ready to support.
Somewhat more controversial stuff (where we still have a majority, like building a fence), can wait a couple of months while we build credibility doing the most highly popular things.
I’m not arguing against the idea. I’m arguing the politics of priorities and how they will be received by the electorate.
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.