This is not new, even Levin has said this for a decade.
Thanks Mark (for all that you do).
The details of how to repeal are irrelevant. IF something is created by man it can most certainly be altered, or eliminated by man. We see it happening before our very eyes.
The point is get ‘er done whatever it takes. It’s for the children.
Low Info voters: where’s the Cheetos?
From the Article:
” It is difficult to imagine that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to confer the boon of citizenship on the children of illegal aliens when they explicitly denied that boon to Indians who had been born in the United States.
Those who defy the laws of the U.S. should not be allowed to confer such an advantage on their children. This would not be visiting the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. would not be denied anything to which they otherwise would have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority.
A nation that cannot determine who becomes citizens or believes that it must allow the children of those who defy its laws to become citizens is no longer a sovereign nation.
No one is advocating that those who have been granted birthright citizenship be stripped of their citizenship. Equal protection considerations would counsel that citizenship once granted is vested and cannot be revoked; this, I believe, is eminently just.”
Listened...great segment.
It doesn’t need to be repealed. It isn’t in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It’s not there. It was created by a bunch of buffoons in black robes while they were hittin’ da happy smoke.
You have to get it past the GOPe first.
I need to see the caveats before I jump on this bandwagon.
I agree 100%, children born in the U.S to non-citizens are not citizens.
Children born to citizen parents?
Children born to citizen father, non-citizen mother?
Children born to citizen mother, non-citizen father?
Children born to citizen mother with no father known?
Children born to non-citizen mother with no father known?
Now replace “children born to” with “children born out of country to”. Ignore the gimmies.
Bwahahaha! Not under the Al Capone Administration it doesn't.
This kind of talk is downright stupid. It detracts from a solution to the real problem. That problem is the unrestrained and huge flow of illegal immigrants across the southern border. The solution is a big border fence.
But every word wasted in these futile and asinine attacks against birthright citizenship makes it less likely that the fence will ever get built.
Mark Levin will be on Hannity tonight (now) to discuss the anchor baby issue.
“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.”
Note the bit about “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ...”. Do you really believe this refers to your mere presence in the U.S.? That's what current law tells us. But, if so, why is the jurisdiction phrase there? Leave it out and you get the same rule.
People coming across the border illegally are subject to our laws but not to our jurisdiction. They are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico or Guatemala or wherever they came from. That is, I believe, Trumps position and mine as well.
“If you are born here you are a citizen.”
Nope. Not subject to our jurisdiction. Read the 14th Amendment. It was not meant as a means to invade the USA.
They are not reading the Constitution. They are taking words are out of context. “Congress shall have the right to determine NATURALIZATION!!! Indians were “born” here. The Congress first said they were not citizens!! Then later in history , the Congress voted that they were!! Congress decides!! Let’s vote to see if Boehner/ McConnel/ Cornyn/ Corker/Rubio will make new anchor babies CITIZENS!!! Bring it on!!
Despite O’Reilly’s rant with Andrea Tanteros (re INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, (1985), No. 83-2032, Argued: March 20, 1985 Decided: May 13, 1985. [See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/471/444.html#sthash.8HG5TMl9.dpuf]), Ann Coulter’s got another take: http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/
I’m still trying to figure out what Rios-Pineda’s got to do with birthright citizenship, other than the off-hand “who is a U. S. citizen” referencing a child in one of the summaries.
I saw O’Reilly saying that the 14th amendment mandates birthright citizenship for illegal aliens’ babies. He shouted louder than Trump, and pointed with his finger, so he must be right.
“Birthright citizenship” of babies born by illegal aliens in the U.S. is as phony as (the wall of) “separation of church and state”.
Bill O on his Fox show tonight made fun of Mark.....even imitated his voice....very rude and very wrong.
In the absence of direction from congress, SCOTUS ruled.
The constitution delegates citizenship rules to congress.
Therefore, if congress creates a law, SCOTUS is overruled.
At least that is the way it SHOULD be.