Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Birthright Citizenship Under Attack
Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 09/29/05 | MARY LOU PICKEL, EUNICE MOSCOSO

Posted on 09/29/2005 12:16:11 AM PDT by Hushpuppie

Silvia Moreno snuck across the U.S. border from Mexico and made it to Atlanta to join her husband last year.

When she gave birth this year, she named her daughter Scarlett, after Scarlett O'Hara.

Moreno, 26, had watched "Gone With the Wind" and was inspired by the Atlanta heroine.

"She worked so hard. She overcame adversity to survive," said Moreno, who wants her daughter to develop the same strength.

Scarlett Alvarado Moreno, 6 months, is a U.S. citizen because she was born here; her mother, father, and 4-year-old brother are illegal immigrants.

Millions of families like Scarlett's will be the focus of a hearing today before a U.S. House subcommittee in Washington to discuss birthright citizenship, dual citizenship and its effect on national sovereignty.

As President Bush opens the debate on a temporary worker program that could allow immigrant laborers to come into the United States, the issue of what happens to their children has come to the forefront.

Although revoking the birthright guarantee is not likely to be part of Congress' immigration reform agenda this fall, there are increasing signs lawmakers are thinking about altering a privilege grounded in common law and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

The proposals come in a post-9/11 time of increasing suspicion toward illegal immigrants. Several bills have been introduced.

Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) wants to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit automatic citizenship at birth to children of U.S. citizens and lawful residents. Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) introduced a constitutional amendment that also would limit birthright citizenship. Such an amendment would require ratification by three-fourths of the states.

'Anchor babies'

A proposal by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who heads a 90-member caucus pushing to tighten immigration laws, would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of temporary immigrant workers.

Tancredo said the provision is vital because temporary workers would not want to leave after their visas expire if their children are U.S. citizens, or so-called anchor babies.

Moreno, of Atlanta, thinks it's unjust to deny citizenship to children born in the United States because their parents, although illegal, work hard.

"People work so much, and they give their youth to this country," Moreno said.

Moreno wanted Scarlett to be an American because with the blue American passport, "the doors of the world are open to her," she said.

Mexicans have a harder time getting tourist visas to see the world, she said.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national group that lobbies to reduce illegal immigration, said the lure of U.S. citizenship for children is a "huge incentive" for people to come to the United States illegally because it opens the door to many social benefits.

Also, once they reach 21, the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants can petition for their parents' residency. Family reunification often is cited as a reason for amnesty proposals.

There were 6.3 million illegal immigrant families in the United States in 2004, according to a study released in June by the Pew Hispanic Center. Most of them — 59 percent — do not have children, the study said.

But nearly one-third of families headed by illegal immigrants do have children who are U.S. citizens, the study said.

Immigrant advocates and Hispanic groups say finding work is the major motivation for illegal immigration.

"The only thing that this kind of change gets you ... is stateless people, which doesn't solve any problem," said Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization.

"This is not a matter of immigration policy, this is a matter of changing who we are fundamentally as a nation," she said.

The United States grants citizenship to every child born in the United States with the exception of children of occupying forces and foreign diplomats, who keep the citizenship of their home country, said Peter J. Spiro, an international law professor at the University of Georgia School of Law who is testifying at today's hearing.

Spiro said that proposals to change the birthright citizenship have been around since the mid-1990s, but several court decisions have upheld the citizenship.

"It's part now of our entrenched constitutional tradition that all children born in the territory of the United States are deemed citizens at birth," he said.

Ides Mercado, 19, who said she came from Honduras five years ago on a visa, warned of consequences if the birthright provision is revoked.

"There will be a lot of illegals here if they don't let the children be citizens," she said as she pushed a stroller with her 7-month-old daughter through Plaza Fiesta on Buford Highway in DeKalb County.

Daisy Montoya Becerra, 24, of Atlanta has one son born here, one son born in Mexico and another child on the way.

She's glad her younger son has U.S. citizenship.

"If he weren't a citizen, they'd take away Medicaid," she said.

She's also happy her younger son will be able to cross the border freely instead of having to slip across with a smuggler.

"With papers, he can come and go easily," she said.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 109th; aliens; anchorbabies; illegalalien; illegalimmigration; illegals; immigrantlist; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 next last
To: msnimje
If you have no ancestors who were in the "New World" in the year 1776, your children are not entitled to citizenship at birth.

Oh, you're letting too much riff-raff in that way.... why not insist that one must have ancestors who were here before Bacon's Rebellion, or before the Glorious Revolution (to keep out the royalist riff-raff). < /snarkasm>

51 posted on 09/29/2005 9:35:34 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: clee1

Actually it was done in the 1996 immigration reform law.

At that time the objective was to make the illegals go home and take the minor child with them. When the child was 18, it could return as an adult citizen.

This is PURE AJC botching the legal reporting.

What happened post reform was that the immigration lawyers started up with the BS "hardship" return cases. Baby needs medical care, the child is ADD, or some other excuse.

You also see these "anecdote" stories when some immigration lawyer sends out a press release to try and get free PR and do PR pressure on the immigration service.


52 posted on 09/29/2005 9:44:27 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justavoter
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) wants to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit automatic citizenship at birth to children of U.S. citizens and lawful residents. Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) introduced a constitutional amendment that also would limit birthright citizenship. Such an amendment would require ratification by three-fourths of the states.

The Deal bill sounds like a reasonable solution; the Foley bill sounds like a pipe dream. Currently, there are two legal exceptions to those granted citizenship at birth: (1)Children of those born here on official diplomatic postings and (2)Children of those born to invading or occupying enemy combatants.

The simple and quick solution is to add a third category: (3)Childern of those born to those who are illegally present in the country. In many cases, there is an overlap between category (2) and (3) anyway, whether it be a Al Qaida cell or a reconquistadora La Raza type.

53 posted on 09/29/2005 9:46:10 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (crime would drop like a sprung trapdoor if we brought back good old-fashioned hangings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
A child should be an American citizen if one of his parents was an American citizen at the time he was born. That's it. Period.

That works for me. Although I'd also be inclined to add children of green card holders as an incentive to be legal.

54 posted on 09/29/2005 9:47:01 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
A child should be an American citizen if one of his parents was an American citizen at the time he was born. That's it. Period.

That works for me. Although I'd also be inclined to add children of green card holders as an incentive to be legal.

55 posted on 09/29/2005 9:47:12 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: justavoter

Did your mother come here illegally?

Where was your father born? You don't say. Go back to DU troll.


56 posted on 09/29/2005 9:50:28 AM PDT by subterfuge (Obama, mo mama...er Osama-La bamba, uh, bama...banana rama...URP!---Ted Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
"The only thing that this kind of change gets you ... is stateless people, which doesn't solve any problem," said Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization.

It is not the obligation of the United States to pass laws to accomodate the convenience of illegal immigrants. This problem could be easily addressed by Mexico granting citizenship to children born abroad of Mexican parents. They seem to have no problem issuing them Consular cards.

57 posted on 09/29/2005 9:50:57 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (crime would drop like a sprung trapdoor if we brought back good old-fashioned hangings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Hushpuppie

It's not the birthright citizenship that's the problem, it's the unconstitutional welfare "rights" hung from it.

If you're born here, you're an American - period.

Get rid of the welfare state.


58 posted on 09/29/2005 9:54:48 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

here is how the illegals don't get citizenship will work.

The democrats and the immigration lawyer lobby will demand that illegal born children be given legal residence for "humanitarian medical birth" reasons. The illegal will not get citizenship but a green card.

The green card will then be converted to citizenship after five years.

Immigration lawyers will figure out a way to make this work for them. IOW a $2,000 case has just become a $5,000 case. (per person)

We have to think this out 10 or 20 steps ahead because eliminating the anchor babies before did not work.

(also BEWARE the "dream act"! That is another back door for illegals)


59 posted on 09/29/2005 9:55:33 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: clee1
Birthright Citizenship

Anchor Baby has a stronger visceral appeal and points up the abuse of Constitutional intent. This ought to be a major issue in '06 and '08. Would require a Constitutional amendment to repair and restore intent.

60 posted on 09/29/2005 9:55:35 AM PDT by RightWhale (28 Sep 05 -- first snowflake --where's FEMA?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hushpuppie
This article is chock full of reasons why birth-citizenship needs to be revoked. Here is just one of them.

She's glad her younger son has U.S. citizenship.

"If he weren't a citizen, they'd take away Medicaid," she said.

61 posted on 09/29/2005 10:04:13 AM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Clearly you disagree with everybody else in the United States, including the Congressman who wrote the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court which decided on this question long ago. The "jurisdiction" clause was included to exclude American Indians who were not subject to the control of the federal government. They were not all made citizens until 1917.


62 posted on 09/29/2005 10:14:00 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
Clearly you disagree with everybody else in the United States, including the Congressman who wrote the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court which decided on this question long ago.

Perhaps you would like to read what the Supreme Court wrote long ago.

The "jurisdiction" clause was included to exclude American Indians who were not subject to the control of the federal government.

Read the case.

63 posted on 09/29/2005 10:23:35 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

Nope. But I might make it retroactive if the green card holder becomes a citizen...


64 posted on 09/29/2005 10:25:08 AM PDT by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

That is not the case in which the Supreme Court decided that according to the 14th Amendment children born in the United States of illegal aliens are U.S. citizens.

I do not have time to do your research, so you will have to find it yourself.


65 posted on 09/29/2005 10:28:18 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
Oh, you're letting too much riff-raff in that way.... why not insist that one must have ancestors who were here before Bacon's Rebellion, or before the Glorious Revolution (to keep out the royalist riff-raff).

Actually, it would be okay with me as my ancestor arrived in the New World in 1641 from Sweden!

66 posted on 09/29/2005 10:32:12 AM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
I think that I qualify under that plan. Some of my ancestors who were here at that time may have been fugitives from the law, however. Does that pose a problem? (It's not like the stole a lot of cattle...)

It will not pose a problem. In fact, if it was in my State of Georgia, you may be royalty.

67 posted on 09/29/2005 10:33:45 AM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
If you have no ancestors who were in the "New World" in the year 1776, your children are not entitled to citizenship at birth.

LOL That's a bit over the top.

68 posted on 09/29/2005 10:34:47 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hushpuppie
... about altering a privilege grounded in common law and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Umm... I have problems with this statement. If the birthright privilege (?) was part of common law, the 14th. Amendment would have been redundant. I don't think that MARY LOU PICKEL and EUNICE MOSCOSO have read either with any comprehension.

Oh well, it's from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I may be expecting too much.

69 posted on 09/29/2005 10:35:09 AM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hushpuppie
This problem illustrates just one of the problems with a "temporary worker" program. These people would be in the country legally yet they would not have the rights of full citizenship. In other words, they would be second-class citizens. Over the long run, that is a very, very bad idea.
70 posted on 09/29/2005 10:36:32 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
"Here is my plan, If you have no ancestors who were in the "New World" in the year 1776, your children are not entitled to citizenship at birth." If I may borrow a bit from your About Page, you seem to have been "Looking for intelligence in all the wrong places." Even my first girl friend at college, whose ancestor had signed the Mayflower Compact, would find your post to be the maundering of a pro-immigration apologist. The issue isn't the "New World", it is whether one is both a legal immigrant and has fully and completely accepted the American way of life. To a disurbing level, all too many Mexicans, Muslims, ad nauseam, do not accept the historic American way of life. As proof of the seditious, if not outright treasonous beliefs of such immigrants I respectfully bring to your attention the La Raza racist whackos among the Mexicans in America (and among Mexican officials, too!). And we can't ignore any longer the Muslims who are commanded by their faith to force Sharia Law on America. Buh bye, anchor babies! And I shall refrain from expounding on the fact that all too many of the anchor baby population are what are technically known as "bastards". And as such, they are statistically certain to be a greater burden on America. Isn't Liberalism grand?

Can you PLEASE GET A GRIP and realize a heavy dose of SARCASM when you read it???

71 posted on 09/29/2005 10:38:00 AM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

Did all of your ancestors arrive on the Mayflower? That sounds like a better date.


72 posted on 09/29/2005 10:39:50 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife ("Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny. "--Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FarmerW
Posted by FarmerW to msnimje On News/Activism 09/29/2005 4:13:06 AM PDT · 38 of 65 If you have no ancestors who were in the "New World" in the year 1776, your children are not entitled to citizenship at birth. I don't get your plan. Central and South America are part of the "New World" so how would that effect illegal immigration? I am going to assume you are joking. I don't think we could amend the Constitution to change the status of born on soil citizenship. But, could it be argued that it is wrong to interpret that portion of the Constitution to include people in this country illegally? Is it not a benefit of an illegal act to receive citizenship for your child born in the US? I always think of it as a bank robber being arrested but still having the right to the free toaster for opening an account. Poor analogy but just the way my silly mind works.

I am really surprised that so many Posters on Free Republic could possibly think that was serious suggestion. Here, let me add the sarcasm tag for you

/sarcasm

Is that better?

73 posted on 09/29/2005 10:42:07 AM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
That is not the case in which the Supreme Court decided that according to the 14th Amendment children born in the United States of illegal aliens are U.S. citizens.

Justice Miller was a contemporary of those who drafted the Amendment and had immediate access to those who wrote it by which to interpret the law. Thus your claim of superior knowledge of its original intent is refuted by his.

Maybe you'll accept the Congressional Globe?

Second, Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Nothing about aboriginals, sirrah, nothing. I don't give a crap what some Roosevelt court wrote.
74 posted on 09/29/2005 10:43:25 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: tcostell
So under your plan, even though I was born here and am therefore an American citizen, my daughter who was also born here wouldn't be? Does this plan of yours require you to know my specific genealogy?

Nope, you both have to go, and by the end of the month.
Seriously, if you will continue reading this thread you will see it was Sarcasm.
I could never even imagine anyone would have taken it seriously, much less SO MANY people on FR.

75 posted on 09/29/2005 10:45:15 AM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
"Here's the problem... you just ruled out the vast majority of Americans, myself included... I was being sarcastic. Frustrated, but sarcastic."

Shucks!
half of me was looking forward to ordering you all out and the other half was wondering how it'd get there.

76 posted on 09/29/2005 10:45:38 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
That what? That any ignorant redneck can get it simply by being born on American soil and having a parent who was an American citizen?

I am not going to read anything you wrote after this line nor will I respond to this ignorant, America bashing remark.

77 posted on 09/29/2005 10:48:03 AM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
And why pick 1776? The United States Government didn't become a viable entity until 1789. Why not 1621? Why not 1491? (a year before Colombus ever showed up)

Funny you should say that because the first draft of MY SARCASTIC suggestion was, "Present in New Sweden in 1641."

78 posted on 09/29/2005 10:50:34 AM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
In 1924 Congress under the jurisdiction clause of the 14th Amendment passed the Indian Citizenship Act. Prior to that the offspring of American Indians, no matter where they were born, whether on the reservation or in NYC were not considered citizens.

That proves Congress has the right to define how jurisdiction will be interpreted and who qualifies under it, including children of illegals. That is btw exactly how the authors of the Amendment intended it to work.

1924 Indian Citizenship Act

79 posted on 09/29/2005 10:55:50 AM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: CzarNicky
If you have no ancestors who were in the "New World" in the year 1776, most Mexican have indian ancestry and were in the "New World" in 1776 BC

That is right, I think only Mexicans and 10th generation European/Americans can make up the population of The United States. You have a problem with that?

Seriously, it was a joke, not intended to be taken seriously. If you will continue reading the thread you will see that.

80 posted on 09/29/2005 10:56:14 AM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

Yes, 1924, not 1917. However, the law did not prove what you say. Per the 14th Amendment, Congress was not required to grant citizenship to Indians, but could choose whether or not to do so, and did so in 1924.


81 posted on 09/29/2005 10:59:44 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
Congress had to clarify the right to citizenship into law because American Indians were considered sovereign, even on what is technically American territory. They, like illegals were classified as foreigners. As a result their offspring were not granted automatic citizenship no matter where they were born, just as the author of the Amendment Jacob Howard stated it would be:

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Since illegal aliens are foreigners their offspring should not be granted automatic citizenship either unless Congress, like in 1924 grants it to them.

82 posted on 09/29/2005 11:07:13 AM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
If you have no ancestors who were in the "New World" in the year 1776, your children are not entitled to citizenship at birth.

Cool. I can stay.

83 posted on 09/29/2005 11:08:51 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
Actually, it would be okay with me as my ancestor arrived in the New World in 1641 from Sweden!

I hear ya, my ancestors were here in Virgina by then as well, but I think "length of time in the country tests" are just silly. There's only one issue I know of on which when your ancestors came to the US is a likely predictor (though not certain) of your views: gun control. Those whose forbears were here before the civil war (and more so those who were here before the revolution) are far more likely to oppose gun control than those whose ancestors arrived after the civli war. And, those whose forbears fought in those conflicts (American side for the revolution, either side for the Late Unpleasantness) are even more likely to oppose gun control.

84 posted on 09/29/2005 11:10:17 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

Actually I got that after I responded.
Thanks.


85 posted on 09/29/2005 11:10:41 AM PDT by tcostell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Hushpuppie

I am in favor of the Fourteenth Amendment being redefined to clarify that any citizen of the United States must have been born of or adopted by a citizen or legal resident of the United States and that at least one parent or legal guardian prove citizenship or legal status before a birth certificate is issued by any agency. Any child born in the US not of a citizen or legal resident should be issued a certificate of birth with non-citizen status clearly marked so that birth may not be used to complicate deportations of illegal aliens.


86 posted on 09/29/2005 11:13:19 AM PDT by azhenfud (He who always is looking up seldom finds others' lost change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

Many states now define the Second Amendment with regards to concealed or open carry weapons, with federal and state restrictions placed on the sales and aquisitions of handguns. There is no logical reasoning state and federal governments can't better define and restrict the continued adulteration of the Fourteenth in the same manner.


87 posted on 09/29/2005 11:20:03 AM PDT by azhenfud (He who always is looking up seldom finds others' lost change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Hushpuppie
The United States grants citizenship to every child born in the United States with the exception of children of occupying forces and foreign diplomats

Why the child of foreign tourists should get the citizenship? Or child of a foreign mother who just wanted to use American hospital?

Why the children of Americans traveling abroad should not get the US citizenship?

Certainly children born to people illegally staying in US should not be more privileged than children foreign diplomats who are legally.

88 posted on 09/29/2005 11:25:47 AM PDT by A. Pole (" There is no other god but Free Market, and Adam Smith is his prophet ! Bazaar Akbar! ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
There is no logical reasoning state and federal governments can't better define and restrict the continued adulteration of the Fourteenth in the same manner.

That's very true, there's so many examples of where the Constitution is treated as a living document. The 14th Amendment could easily under those rules be redefined to better work for what is needed today. But they don't really need to do that if the courts and Congress just read what the authors of the Amendment intended instead of playing pc games.

89 posted on 09/29/2005 11:27:19 AM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

This issue was settled a long time ago.


90 posted on 09/29/2005 11:29:39 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000
Yes, many of the privileges they enjoy here act as an incentive, but do we want to live in a country that is cold hearted and calculating?

It does not have to be "cold hearted and calculating". When the child of illegal aliens grows up, the fact of being born in US and growing up in US might be a good argument in APPLYING for citizenship or green card. But it should not be automatic.

91 posted on 09/29/2005 11:30:47 AM PDT by A. Pole (" There is no other god but Free Market, and Adam Smith is his prophet ! Bazaar Akbar! ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
This issue was settled a long time ago.

It has not been settled, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the citizenship status regarding children of illegals to my knowledge. The only case involved that of a Chinese legal immigrant, big difference.

92 posted on 09/29/2005 11:33:33 AM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Hushpuppie
It's not just the Mexicans...there are Chinese, Middle Eastern women, all nationalities that come here just to give birth.

Some wealthy people from other countries use leading American hospitals because of their quality. After their child is born they go back home. Why should they be receiving this extra gift?

93 posted on 09/29/2005 11:33:58 AM PDT by A. Pole (" There is no other god but Free Market, and Adam Smith is his prophet ! Bazaar Akbar! ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hushpuppie
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) wants to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit automatic citizenship at birth to children of U.S. citizens and lawful residents. Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) introduced a constitutional amendment that also would limit birthright citizenship. Such an amendment would require ratification by three-fourths of the states.

My position is that this should never have been necessary, since I am sure that the Founding Fathers never envisioned an America of such poverty of Common-sense as to apply it to casual travelers, illegal criminals, indeed enemy spy moles hiding within a family.

If there are any rational arguments against this clarification, I have never seen any, nor heard of them.

94 posted on 09/29/2005 11:34:38 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Liberal level playing field: If the Islamics win we are their slaves..if we win they are our equals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
That's about the most ridiculous plan I've heard.

I do believe that using sarcasm was intended as an argument in opposition to clarifying the law.

Yeah. Lame and mindless.

95 posted on 09/29/2005 11:38:38 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Liberal level playing field: If the Islamics win we are their slaves..if we win they are our equals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
Actually, it would be okay with me as my ancestor arrived in the New World in 1641 from Sweden!

I hear ya, my ancestors were here in Virgina by then as well, but I think "length of time in the country tests" are just silly. There's only one issue I know of on which when your ancestors came to the US is a likely predictor (though not certain) of your views: gun control. Those whose forbears were here before the civil war (and more so those who were here before the revolution) are far more likely to oppose gun control than those whose ancestors arrived after the civli war. And, those whose forbears fought in those conflicts (American side for the revolution, either side for the Late Unpleasantness) are even more likely to oppose gun control.

You know what, that is an extremely good point. Since this is a "Nation of Laws not of Men" perhaps that should be the qualifier in determining citizenship.
Should everybody be subject to the same citizen test LEGAL immigrants are required to take and pass before citizenship is bestowed upon them?

Should people born here would have to take the test upon reaching the age of 18 and take the oath of allegiance?
It is an interesting concept.

96 posted on 09/29/2005 11:43:49 AM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
If you have no ancestors who were in the "New World" in the year 1776, your children are not entitled to citizenship at birth.

Well then.. I'm covered. Great, great, great, great ,great (whatever) grandfather John ... knew a good thing when he saw it, and moved the family here in 1765.

97 posted on 09/29/2005 11:49:47 AM PDT by AFreeBird (your mileage may vary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hushpuppie

I know the AJC means for these pieces to tug at the heart strings but they never fail to provide the best laugh of the day in their absurdity.


98 posted on 09/29/2005 11:56:00 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bernard

Vicente Fox WAS regime change in Mexico. Hard as it may be to believe for people who have only begun paying attention recently, Fox is a huge improvement over what came before. I can tell you don't remember Lopez Portillo and Luis Echeverria very well, not to mention Salinas or Zedillo and the PRI. Or how even more terribly dysfunctional Mexico's economy was as recently as the 80s. Only decent president in recent history was de la Madrid. In Mexico there are a million people entering the workforce each year. They simply can't gen up the jobs that fast. If we are going to have to wait until Mexicans enjoy the same standard of living as we do to solve our illegal immigration problem, we will never solve it. You have described and justified a policy of wait until we are over-run. Or perhaps you don't believe it is a problem. It is Fox's job to look out for the interests of Mexicans, it is our job to look out for our country's interests. I don't hold it against Fox because he's doing his job, and we aren't.


99 posted on 09/29/2005 12:13:17 PM PDT by 3AngelaD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

When I was in high school back in the dark ages of the 1960s, you had to pass Civics (also known as American Institutions) in order to graduate. In order to pass Civics, you had to pass a test on our institutions (federal and California) that was very similar to the test then given to candidates for citizenship.


100 posted on 09/29/2005 12:20:58 PM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson