The chances of this bill even getting a committee hearing are slim to none.
It needs to be put on the table - we’re broke. Good for the GOP.
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.
If it was a BASIC TENET of the US Constitution, it would have been codified in the original Bill of Rights.
That's because illegal immigrants a better shake from the system than those who actually fill out the paperwork to become legal citizens the first time.
If passed, it would make the management of the country so much easier, and it's continued solvency that much more likely. It's too bad it doesn't stand a chance.
better idea: end the welfare state for everybody
I think it’s pretty reasonable that birthright citizenship needs to be restricted to those who are born of at least one citizen parent. (This is not about the “natural born” issue, which I agree ought to require two citizen parents.)
Unfortunately true. I am pretty sure that Canada had a similar law and changed it due to an influx of illegals.
Well, that which starts with a lie, ends badly.
We should ban these types of divisive proposals. All this bill is meant to do is play on people’s fears, incite anger and hate
GREAT..He’s against obamacare since it does the same thing..oh, wait..nevermind..
We don't want to relinquish to the democrats the high road in protecting Constitutional guarantees.
of course, if we would define that life starts at conception, then the mother couldn’t drag her arse across the border to birth an American citizen. They would be the citizen of the country they were conceived in.
Here’s a fairly simple idea:
Regardless of where you’re born (at home, on vacation, in an airplane, on a boat, or in a country your mom snuck into illegally), you receive the citizenship of your parents.
If your parents are citizens of different countries, they choose and it goes on the birth certificate. If the father isn’t known, it defaults to the mom.
How difficult is that?
Dear Dubya,
the Democrats provided the precedent when Elian Gonzalez was sent back to Cuba to be with his father. The government insisted that children belong with their parents: so be it.
Deport all foreign nationals presently in the U.S. without documentation. If he/she/they have a child or children born in the U.S., then those children go with their parent(s). As ‘native born’ U.S. citizens the children would have the right of return when age eighteen (I prefer age twenty-one myself).
I believe this would comply with existing immigration laws and the precedence set by Democrats.
“...current law says that a child under 18 cannot sponsor any relatives for admission, so, if the parents are deported, they must either give up the child for adoption or take it with them (though the child is entitled to a U.S. passport and to return at age 18).”
__________________________________________________________________________________
That’s exactly what I’ve heard. Illegal alien parents must be deported and they have to take their minor children with them, and the kids can’t come back till age 18. This “breaking up of families” meme is BS.
We don’t need ANY sweeping “reform” laws to deal with illegals. A little imagination and resolve in enforcing existing laws (fining employers, fining landlords, stationing ICE agents at social services offices, courthouses, DMV’s and ER’s, deporting all criminal aliens, etc.) are all that’s required.
We COULD use REAL immigration reform, i.e., streamlining the process for legitimate immigrants, insisting on “value-added” immigrants, removing all racial quotas and focusing on skills and education, beefing up the background check for visa issuances, and so on.
You have many people coming to this country illegally. They come to this country and have babies. The children are citizens. The children are eligible to go to school. They receive food stamps and social programs. The American taxpayers are paying for it. “
How many states are going to buck the Feds and set up rules for each of their states?
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.
uh no, No, and &%$#ing NO! That was not the intent of the 14th Amendment.
Children of Diplomats, visitors from other countries, or other 'temporary' people who were/are NOT under the legal jurisdiction of the United states (i.e.: citizen/national of another country) were NOT to have US Citizenship as a 'birthright'.
(The original debate notes, the speech by the Amendment's sponsor, are still in the Library of Congress. Someone just has to look it up and it's case closed.)
And as we all know from the MSM -- the poor illegal is here only to wotk for a while, just long enough to make some money, and then go back to Mexico to live like a king in his mud hut. That they stay is irrelevant. Their original 'intent' is what matters. And they intended to go HOME.
Additionally. If they are 'under the jurisdiction of the US', then how come WE have to call the Mexican Consul when they are arrested for a Felony? Hmmmm? As if and when we don't, they cry that they were denied Their Rights As Citizens of Mexico!
If you go to a library and 'borrow' a book, that book always remains the Property of the LIBRARY. Whether you return it on time (intent) or keep it for 20 years (illegal), it is still the Library's and is STILL legally under their jurisdiction.
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.
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.