Posted on 02/11/2013 1:33:20 AM PST by DangerZone
I am coming to the conclusion that the GOPe would rather lose with a moderate/liberal than win with a conservative. If they do lose, the Democrats would always be there to further the left’s agenda. Just complete us horrible conservatives out of power at any cost.
complete = keep
CHILDREN OF BANK ROBBERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KEEP THE LOOT!
After all, they are innocent of the wrongdoing of their parent(s). And the bank’s depositors and its insurance company owe this support to these innocent children.
RE: You are also incorrect about our law giving citzenship to anchor babies
________________________________________
Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution on July 9, 1868, citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
If you want this amendment amended to solve the problem of anchor babies, I have no objections. However, it is there for better or for worse.
RE: You are also incorrect about our law giving citzenship to anchor babies
________________________________________
Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution on July 9, 1868, citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
If you want this amendment amended to solve the problem of anchor babies, I have no objections. However, it is there for better or for worse.
If a person is in the United States, isn’t that person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
I have not read any justice of the Supreme Court interprete that claus as anything other than JUS SOLI.
Jus soli (Latin: right of the soil), is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be recognized to any individual born in the territory of the related state.
THAT has always been the law of our land.
In fact, Jus soli is observed by a minority of the world’s countries. Of advanced economies (as defined by the International Monetary Fund), Canada and the United States are the only countries that observe birthright citizenship.
If you want to change that to Jus Sanguinis (a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the nation), we have to specifically state it in the Constitution, not re-interpret it the way we want it.
The problem is that illegals take advantage of the law by using their innumerable offspring as "anchor babies." Since the children are automatically US citizens, the parents are allowed to stay to. Something needs to be done about this.
In any case, the issue that's really at hand here are illegals who came over with their parents as small children. Advocates of citizenship for them use the specious argument "the children didn't knowingly break the law, so they shouldn't be punished for their parents' crimes." To understand just how inane that law is, imagine saying "It's not fair to take away property from thieves, because you're hurting their children who didn't commit or knowingly benefit from the theft."
That is correct. That is why I said "change the law".
“All persons born of parents legally present in the United States, or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
If I'm reading you correctly, you believe that the phrase means that people illegally present here are not subject to our laws? If I am not, please clarify. I learn something new every day here!
RE: “All persons born of parents legally present in the United States, or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
_________________________
I FULLY AGREE WITH YOU. Nothing compares with a CLEAR, CONCISE statement of intent.
So, how do we get this amendment rolling?
They are as much as diplomats; they are not (legally) OF the U.S. Like everyone who comes here, they are afforded the protection of our laws, but not as a Citizen, and as thus, cannot pass the same on to their brood.
Tell me what would happen if I did the same crap in, say, Mexico!? You think they’d bend over to give me welfare, a job, etc. for dropping a kid on their soil? No, I don’t think so.
No argument there. However, under Reagan, the Dems still controlled enough votes to stop every effort to seal the border and have done so ever since. They want the illegals for two reasons:
1) a permanent class of underprivileged citizens who will spend their entire lives suckling the public teat and
2) provide a permanent class of Dem voters.
The GOPe is dumb enough to believe that if they go along with this nuttiness, the amnestied illegals will support the GOPe. Unfortunately, they are so delusional that they don't understand that the Dems own this one and they will NEVER get any of the amnestied illegals to vote for them.
Cantor is talking about giving citizenship to underage illegal aliens themselves.
Remember when a bunch of freepers fawned over the idea of running this for Senator, Vice President, President, etc.?
Welcome to the Rand Paul evolution [Now advocates a "Path to Citizenship" for illegal immigrants]
So much for all the freepers who swore Ron Paul's chip off the ol' block was a "true conservative"
Exactly.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The federal government has no authority to grant citizenship, only to follow the Original Intent of the Founders.
It was understood for over 100 years after the Founding that the citizenship of the parents determined the citizenship of the children.
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.'
A Digest of the International Law of the United States , 1887 / Chapter VII, Page 183
-----
What we refer to as 'illegals' were called denizens by the Founders. People IN a country, but not OF it. The first legal treatise written Ratification showed a distinct difference of jurisdiction concerning these people.
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
The federal governments authority to make a regular rule of immigration does NOT mean they have any determination over citizenship, and the blanket amnesty and anchor baby laws are wholly unconstituional.
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.