[msnimje]

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.

[justavoter]

Here's the problem... you just ruled out the vast majority of Americans, myself included. My grandmother (English) married my grandfather (son of Scotish immigrants from mid 1800's) after WWII. My mother was born in England and was brought to the US shortly thereafter.

Please explain to me why I don't deserve to be a US citizen at birth, as I am the grandson of an Army veteran who fought in WWII and his English wife, and the son of a woman who spent less than two years of her life in the UK.

Do the same for all of the other Irish, Italian, German, and other immigrants that flooded the US in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Not to mention the Asians from the 1800's and others.

[flashbunny]

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

[injin]

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

I'm good....my great great great fought the Brits in the Carolinas.

I totally agree with Tom Tancredo (again!)
Let's see about getting this man to run for President in 2008.
He's got the cojones to say what he really thinks ,and if given the chance he might actually do them too!

[pcottraux]

Hey, wait a minute. My ancestors came over in the 1840's. I don't like your plan!

[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

[Prodigal Son]

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. You just included Mexico, South America and all the anscestors of natives who were already living on the two continents before the Europeans showed up.

Also, there were loads of other immigrants (Italian, Irish, German etc) who showed up in the 19th and 20th centuries.

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)

[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?

[FarmerW]

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.

[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?

[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...)

[CatoRenasci]

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>

[MEGoody]

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.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

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

[B Knotts]

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.

[AFreeBird]

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.