Posted on 01/27/2011 11:49:26 AM PST by Free ThinkerNY
Two Republican senators are introducing a resolution that would end the constitutional right to citizenship that comes with being born on U.S. soil.
Rand Paul (Ky.) and David Vitter (La.) are introducing a resolution this week that would amend the Constitution so that a person born in the United States could only become an American citizen if one or more of his or her parents is an legal citizen, legal immigrant, or member of the armed forces, according to a joint press release Thursday.
Vitter said the legislation would help reduce illegal immigration.
“For too long, our nation has seen an influx of illegal aliens entering our country at an escalating rate, and chain migration is a major contributor to this rapid increase – which is only compounded when the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are granted automatic citizenship,” Vitter said. “Closing this loophole will not prevent them from becoming citizens, but will ensure that they have to go through the same process as anyone else who wants to become an American citizen.”
Paul said the legislation enforces the current immigration rules.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Make it retro active too!
If a child of a legal immigrant is a citizen, that gives permanent residence to the immigrants. I say no to this one. The child should only be a citizen of the country the parents immigrated from.
Bet they all have birth certificates!!!!!
The proposal will need the support of 38 state legislatures and there is no way that will ever happen.
That's an outright lie. They did no such thing.
Their law merely clarifies the conditions under which birthright citizenship is granted, something completely allowed for in the text of the 14th.
I was hoping Rand Paul was smarter than this. This ‘constitutional amendment’ will go the way of the ERA, on the historical trash dump of failed amendments with the idea. I guess he is the same Rand Paul who thought Maddow was his friend. His dad Ron loves to come up with lots of ideas that are DOA too.
We don't give automatic citizenship to children of diplomats. Why is this so hard to understand?
more than can be said for obama...
I’m sure both Vitter and Paul understand that this proposal is only symbolic and has no chance whatsoever of being approved.
A lot of liberal heads are going to explode over this legislation.
Here is a trick to defeat the liberal argument that anybody who opposes birthright citizenship is a racist.
Ask your liberal: Would you and your wife or husband go to a foreign country illegally, have a child, then demand that you and your children should be granted citizenship just because your children were born on foreign soil?
And even if you were a foreign country legally, wouldn’t you demand your children be recognized as being Americans instead of the foreign country they were born in?
A prime technique for bringing down an existing social order is to OVERLOAD and OVERWHELM the governmental systems, creating economic and social chaos. What’s going on today straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “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 gadgets 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 our 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 began to exceed 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 (which, because these illegals can generally be counted on to vote the liberal line, they DO NOT). 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, Reader’s 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 hospital’s – 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 family member was now a taxpayer, they were costing HER.
And while she may not exactly be a libertarian, today she has come a long way from Harvard.
And just so the bleeders who might see this don’t 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 waddled 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 who’d just finished a 4 year turn in the USAF.
As I wrote the check, I remembered the magazine article I’d 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 SHOULDN’T EVEN BE HERE, denying care to native-born citizens who normally pay their bills and their taxes. And, I submit, the drain the illegals impose on the welfare system is a major reason for our national insolvency. (Thank you grubby progressive, power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats!)
Look, I have a big enough problem paying for the 3rd and 4th generation slackers and welfare bums who were BORN here.
It’s time we stopped paying for those who were not.
While they’re at it, why don’t they put forth a new law which REQUIRES the complete vetting of ALL potential Presidents, including putting the onus on each candidate to provide PROPER and IRREFUTABLE evdience that they are, in fact, NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZENS, as the Constitution REQUIRES?
It needs 67 votes in the Senate, 288 votes in the House and 38 state legislatures. Good luck.
Like they would really obey the US Constitution but... The US Government cannot make law retro active.
Article 1, Clause 3, Section 9 of US Constitution.
“...No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
The author of this article is either a liar or an idiot. First, legislation cannot AMEND the Constitution. That statement alone show complete ignorance of our constitutional government... and his BOZO reports for The Hill!
Second, you are right this LEGISLATION is only rewriting citizenship requirement to overturn a SCOTUS opinion (which really wasn't a majority opinion).
The crime here is that the people of the US do not know that the scam of citizenship perpetuated by illegals crossing the boarder to have child has been sponsored for 30 years by Congress that has failed to act. Congress has repeated the lie or ignorance of the constitution, just like this boneheaded author, that birth place is the right of citizenship.
Even worse. Then they shouldn't be proposing it at all until a Federal law doing the same is passed, signed and is ruled unconstitutional. They do damage setting a constitutional amendment as the fence height to climb over.
This sort of thing really annoys me because it's counter-productive. When this fails then what? Dead end!
Legislation, like that introduced in the House is the way to go. Admitting this is a constitutional problem is asinine.
Ping!
At least the House, anyway.
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.