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 ...
Great...I’m really beginning to like these guy’s!!
He did... for those who can read. That's what "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." means. Lawyers have bastardized the law to what it is now... just like the 2nd Amendment... but the words still mean what they were meant to mean.
Maybe he thought that he was writing for an educated populace. At the time of the writing “... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” meant what you suggested. That’s why he said “of course” in his explanation... it was self-evident in the language. Then come the lawyers...
I could be mistaken, but I believe that illegal aliens are not “...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” as that phrase is defined. If so, Senator Howard’s comments would be redundant.
Also, legislative history is relevant, though not conclusive evidence, in determining the intent of laws.
This is the first act? I never heard this.
We all see how well the "Shall not be infringed" wording worked"
Of course you can argue that the word infringed is not defined in the Constitution just like Natural Born Citizen is not defined either.
The anchor baby issue comes up because right now the parents of US citizens can be petitioned for by their adult children. It is an immediate relative category which means no having to wait for a visa number (the category is not limited to a set number per year). To fix the problem now all you have to do is amend the Immigration and Nationality Act making a parent inadmissible (unable to get their greencard) if they are being petitioned by a US citizen by birth child and the parent was not legally in the US at the time of that child's birth.
No need to amend the Constitution and no basis for challenging the constitutionality of the law. It can be passed more easily and would be less likely to be tied up in legal challenges so can take effect immediately.
All in all, a much better way to handle the anchor baby issue now. The birthright challenge can still be brought separately.
The jails in this country are filled with illegal aliens who found out that they were indeed 'subject to the jurisdiction' of our federal or state governments.
And what does that phrase mean to you?
I tried that argument once, and got the response to the effect of “If you think illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, look at the US inmate population”.
In 1924 Congress granted citizen rights to Indians. Today, as they did in 1924 they can either clarify that illegals who have children on our soil have been or will be citizens or do the opposite.
While foreigners and illegals may have legal protection under our laws that should be all they have. And they certainly do not have any extra legal protection by their own declaration. For example, if they happen to be moslem and demand that sharia law be inserted with or before US law. Which brings up the question whether the followers of islam even born here are citizens since they have repudiated their citizenship by declaring that islam is first before the US Constitution.
At a minimum we need to stop this anchor baby garbage and do so ASAP.
I can’t say that I agree with this idea. We’re going to end up like France, with third generation kids who know nothing but America. They certainly wont leave to Mexico. Rioting anyone? A much better solution is an ACTUAL fix, namely, a fence.
About time. We are the only country that does this insanity.
Anchor babies were lawyered in.
There is no need to “change the Constitution”.
Simply enforce the 14th Amendment as it was written and intended.
The words “...and subject to their jurisdiction...” takes care of everything. An illegal alien is not subject to United States jurisdiction.
Let’s try this little experiment: “All undocumented aliens in the United States are hereby ordered to report to the nearest community police station to be registered.”
What’s that? Nobody showed up? Well ain’t that a hole in the boat!
A resolution by Congress (not even a new law, per se) would be sufficient to settle this confusion. No Amendment required, either.
And it’s about damn time!!!
A prime technique for bringing down an existing social order is to OVERLOAD and OVERWHELM the governmental systems, creating economic and social chaos. Whats going on today straight out of Saul Alinskys Handbook for Radicals. Because we have NOT sent home 20 million illegals, WE NOW HAVE THE FORMER AND ARE CLOSING IN ON THE LATTER. BOTH parties have been applying those methods but Obama, who studied those methods under Bill Ayers while a so-called community organizer, is using ALL the tools in the radical toolkit. If it continues much longer, YOUR kids are doomed to life as serfs in a nation that will more resemble Nazi Germany or the old USSR than the America the Founders ATTEMPTED to leave us.
A member of the family is an OB/GYN who took her pre-med at HAAAAVVAAAAADDD! Needless to say, she emerged from that experience a LIBERAL. (She stopped catching babies and went into research when her malpractice premiums exceeded her annual earnings.)
Upon completing her medical training at yet another liberal university, she interned at a hospital near the border in “Kahlifonia.”
It was there that a mystical transformation took place: She began to connect the heavy deductions from the slave wage GROSS EARNINGS for which she busted her butt for as many as 72 virtually sleepless hours in a row with the taxis and jalopies regularly sliding to the curb in front of the ER.
Many of them contained pregnant illegals who won the race to deliver their babies HERE. She caught many of those anchor babies who, under the current — and COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS —interpretation of the 14th Amendment were IMMEDIATELY NEW AMERICANS. The mother who, obviously, could not care for the child if she were back in her native land — could not be deported now even if the INS and the political bosses WANTED her deported . And as the mother of a new US citizen, the woman could remain here for about as long as she cared to and that was usually for life.
(NOTE: For a short, Readers Digest version of the ORIGINAL intent of the 14th Amendment, go here: http://pocusa.info/NLArchive22_14thAmndt.html . For a more comprehensive explanation of the events surrounding the amendment, go here: http://www.14thamendment.us/index.html )
Most of those patients were welfare recipients and the deliveries were charity cases: The bill for the hospitals and HER services were routinely spread over the bills of those who DO pay. And what the other users of those facilities don’t cover went back to the taxpayers.
And since my niece was now a taxpayer, they were costing HER.
And while she may not exactly be a libertarian, today shes now a LOOONNNNG way from Haaaavaaaaaad.
And just so the bleeders who might see this dont think me some sort of ethnocentric bigot, I submit this problem is MORE than just about illegals.
Before my oldest daughter was born at University Hospital in Cleveland in 1967, I sat in the main lobby as welfare mother-to-be after welfare mother-to-be shuffled through the door to the maternity ER for THEIR free deliveries.
Before WE could take OUR daughter home, I had to cough up over 3 grand. And that was a great deal of dough in 1967, especially for a guy just out of the USAF.
As I wrote the check, I remembered the magazine article Id recently read by a hospital administrator from Massachusetts who admitted that all US hospitals practiced a form of medical Marxism, spreading the costs of care for indigents over the bills of those who DO pay for care. Given the move to socialism here, it probably will never be otherwise: Not counting Byzantine complexity and confusion, government produces and has — NOTHING unless it first takes it from some PERSON. SOMEBODY ALWAYS PAYS.
The illegals have been using the emergency rooms of our hospitals for their health-care, almost always at no charge to them. That cost is either spread over other users or the taxpayers. We have seen a national epidemic of hospital closings due to their insolvency, much of it caused by the burden of trying to render care to PEOPLE WHO SHOULDNT EVEN BE HERE, denying care to native-born citizens who normally pay their bills and their taxes.
Look, I have a big enough problem paying for the 3rd and 4th generation slackers and welfare bums who were BORN here.
Its time we stopped paying for those who were not.
“Look to Milton —Open borders and the welfare state”