GOP bill would restrict birthright citizenship

HOUSTON CHRONICLE ^ | HOUSTON CHRONICLE

[Eagles6]

That’s what I recall but I can’t find any info that Canada actually changed their policy.

[montag813]

There are few more basic tenets in the U.S. Constitution than this: If you're born in the U.S., you're a citizen.

That is simply untrue.

If you are the offspring of a foreign diplomat, born in a New York hospital, no court in the nation would consider you a U.S. citizen. If you are born to a foreign national visiting Disney World on a travel visa, no court in the nation would consider you an American citizen.

This is because the 14th Amendment is crystal clear on the subject:

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.

An infant son of the Swedish Ambassador is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but that of Sweden. The newborn daughter of a German tourist born in Orlando is subject to German jurisdiction.

And YES...the son or daughter of a Mexican citizen born on U.S. soil is subject to MEXICAN jurisdiction, and thus is NOT a U.S. citizen.

I cannot for the life of me comprehend how the Executive branch and the Courts cannot understand this obvious truth.

[SatinDoll]

“What you have described is current U.S. law.”

Well, one sure wouldn’t recognize that fact from everyday reality!

[greeneyes]

Correct, according to the 14th amendment they are not citizens, unless subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Why are they being given citizenship?

[greeneyes]

Must have been a liberal Supreme Court, and for what it’s worth - I don’t agree. It is unconstitutional to give citizenship to children whose parents are foreigners here illegally.

[Free Vulcan]

Easy. Babies of current citizens are citizens no matter where they are born, since their parents are ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ per the 14th amendment.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Must have been a liberal Supreme Court, and for what it’s worth - I don’t agree

The Wong Kim Ark decision was back in 1898, so I'm not sure if current standards of "liberal" and "conservative" apply. All subsequent courts, both very liberal and very conservative, have followed Ark based on stare decisis.

[greeneyes]

Time to reconsider.

[redshawk]

This link is from a local paper about letting illegals go free as ordered by the DNS. Seems that the Sheriff caught the illegals, however, were instructed to release them. (only in the USA)

http://www.dailyjournalonline.com/articles/2010/02/17/news/doc4b7ac08484063933521186.txt

Here is a follow-up from the construction company.
http://www.dailyjournalonline.com/articles/2010/02/17/news/doc4b7b8028d83c8725758412.txt

All I can say is, Unbelievable.
My God Help us.
Red.

[demkicker]

The chances of this bill even getting a committee hearing are slim to none.

In total frustration, I used to think that as well - but I do believe a new day has dawned and that the overall majority of American citizens will support this bill whole-heartedly.

[bjorn14]

Yeah, that was my first thought too. It’s sad the US has to make all these contortions in the law because Mexico can’t get it’s act together. I don’t see Canadians trying to swim across Lake Erie.

[bcsco]

This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.

AZ-Sen. 2010: McCain: Help Main Street first (McCain still pushing amnesty, cap and tax)

Unrestricted migration to be proposed- Open Western Hemisphere borders proposed

Ariz. Sen. Passes Bill Outlawing Sanctuary Cities

Thousands of Haitian Illegals Apply for Earthquake Amnesty(Is this the way to make US stronger?)

NJ man tells police he tossed baby off bridge

They' re Closing Down the Party in Cali...

[Bigg Red]

Not much info at the source. It gives the Congressman’s name, but it gives no details on the bill, not even its number/name. How are we supposed to start nagging our congressmen about it?

[Uncle Chip]

There is significant legal scholarship indicating that in fact the Constitution does NOT mandate “birthright citizenship.” People should look at the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment and the legislative history.

Exactly.

[tutstar]

ping

[AnalogReigns]

The Constitution NOWHERE guarantees birthright citizenship to foreigners. It's purpose was to recognize ex-slaves as full citizens.

It's only still accepted court decisions.... precedence, about the 14th Ammendment, that demands birthright citizenship. Let's look what the 14th Ammendment actually says on this:

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. (USC Amendment 14, Article 1)

Illegal's children or any other foreigners' babies born in the USA, are not, in the original meaning of the text, either "naturalized" or "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," as they are citizens of their parent's countries...

Federal judges and eventually, the Supremes could tomorrow interpret the Ammendment how it was intended...NOT to make foreign citizens kids US citizens, rather to make everyone who was native to the USA' (ex-slaves and American Indians, actually) kid's citizens.

Naturally though, neither Repubs or Dems will change this as BIG MONEY in America depends on illegals coming here, and no one wants to PO Latin immigrants.....