Posted on 08/19/2015 11:44:28 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
But that's not what Levin said, nor did any of the sources he quoted make that distinction.
Mark is right.
Here are Mark’s comments:
These classes of people, even if born here, are NOT American citizens under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952:
a child born on American soil to a:
(1) foreign ambassador,
(2) head of state,
(3) foreign military prisoner
So what prevents Congress from simply adding another class of people to the list?
In Wong Kim Ark the SCOTUS simply decided that the Chinese exclusion act could not be retroactively applied to someone who acquired citizenship by reason of birth within the United States, which was the law at the time of his birth.
In other words, the 14th Amendment does not require birthright citizenship. The Congress could act to exclude such cases if the corrupt, lying pieces of dung ever acted to do so. Indians and Puerto Ricans were not considered to have US citizenship until Congress passed a law granting them such, even though they were clearly "under the jurisdiction of the United States" in the ordinary sense.
Never said they were. My point is that the 14th Amendment which is used create anchor babies is a direct result of slavery. Free labor to cheap labor....it's a tidy system.
Here’s a good background primer on this issue:
Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326736/posts
Tell that to Fox’s Shannon Bream, who has been subbing for Megan Kelleythis week. She calls the end of the 14th amendment (which she said she learned in school), needed to be abolished, when responding to Trump. And she didn’t see that happening.
Judge Napolitano was her guest and he concerred.
The mind reels at the sheer number of present day societal ills that came from our greedy ancestors’ hunger for free labor. Perhaps it is God’s judgement rendered for that sin.
So did O'Reilly who isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Levin makes sense to me. And it's also the commonsense position.
Jindal’s parents were here on green cards, and his mom was pregnant with him at the time.
I'm not trying to be facetious, but why not ask who everyone agrees is a constitutional expert, Ted Cruz? And why is he quiet on this, so far? It would seem to me that he would be the go-to guy,
I saw that. We need to push our gov’t to stop this madness!
My parents were born to immigrants who were not naturalized at the time.
So my parents were never citizens, which in turn means I am not a citizen because I was born to non-citizens.
That probably happened to millions of our families.
So maybe it needs to be re-stated that the children of freed American slaves are automatic citizens?
I heard they were here on student visas, not green cards. Green cards take a long time to get and they come at the end of the immigration process... she was pregnant with him when they first arrived.
Many things have been done in the past, but the logical policy for citizenship going forward is extremely simple. Trump is right about the basic issues: if we can’t determine who becomes a citizen, then we don’t have a country.
In the modern world, this anchor baby scam is beyond ridiculous.
I’m with you - it was never the intention...
That would not be an exception to what I wrote. A child born to parents who later became naturalized would only mean their children would be naturalized at the same time as the parents.
If green cards were handed out to people not already far along the immigration path by any means other than the lottery, that’s news to me. They certainly don’t hand out green cards like that anymore, and haven’t in decades at least.
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.