Posted on 10/19/2010 12:30:31 PM PDT by Justaham
Lawmakers in at least 14 states are collaborating on proposed legislation to deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, according to lawmakers, including the sponsor of Arizona's 2010 law targeting illegal immigration.
"We're taking a leadership role on things that need to be fixed in America. We can't get Congress to do it," Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce, of Mesa, said Tuesday. "It's a national work group so that we have model legislation that we know will be successful, that meets the constitutional criteria."
The efforts by the state legislators come amid calls to change the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. Supporters cite costs to taxpayers for services provided to illegal immigrants and their children.
Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, the founder of a national group of legislators critical of illegal immigration, said the 14th Amendment "greatly incentives foreign invaders to violate our border and our laws." He had a news conference Tuesday in Harrisburg, Pa., on the multistate endeavor.
The effort could run afoul of the language in the 14th Amendment and lead to a court battle over the constitutionality of the law. But Metcalfe said providing birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is an "ongoing distortion and twisting" of the amendment.
Metcalfe's office said lawmakers in at least 12 other states besides Arizona and Pennsylvania said they were making their own announcements about working on the citizenship legislation. Those other states: Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah. Legislators from a total of 41 states are involved in a Metcalfe-founded group concerned with immigration issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The parents committed crimes by coming here illegally. I sincerely doubt they care about their children other than to use them as a reason NOT to be deported.
We put people in prison all the time — should we agonize over that just because they have children?
The fact is, felons don’t give a damn about their kids otherwise they would not commit crimes and be sent to prison. The same goes for illegal aliens, only in their case the whole family gets deported, as there is no cruelty in keeping families together, now is there?
I don’t buy their cries, “But we did it for our children”. Bull poop!
Right now the law is written so that custody follows the parents, not the child.
When the illegal parents are deported, the minor child, REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP, goes with the parents.
The US citizens is free to return upon reaching 18. HOWEVER any children born of that citizen are only citizens of the usa IF the parent US citizen has spent ten years in the USA.
uscis.gov
born in the US means US citizen.
That said, the law need to be changed. Constitution or mere law. The original reason for the 14th automatically granting citizenship is no longer present. It is also from an era where STATES controlled immigration.
At first glance I would say this is a smokescreen and a fake, meant to accomplish the opposite of the entitled purpose. Grandstanding. Bullshiite.
In point of fact, the 14th Amendment DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form grant citizenship to the children of those in the country illegally. In point of fact, neither does it offer citizenship to the children of visitors here legally.
We are dealing with a generous custom, which must now be ended; nothing more. It can be ended tonight by nothing more than an executive order.
What the 14 state legislatures ought to be doing is insisting that Presidential candidates be "Natural Born Citizens," as required in the COTUS. Once and for all, that is what needs to be defined, with the original intent of the Founders clearly in mind.
By denying the present POTUS a p[lace on state ballots, which is clearly within their power, this definition can be settled by the SCOTUS. Has to be done, even if the lesbo-commies now seated toss the case for Obama.
Amen, and well said. If we ever actually did it, of course there would be reams of sob stories in the media. “Poor, poor Juan or Maria...born in the US...it’s the only home they’ve ever known...now they are cruelly denied citizenship, wrenched from the only home they’ve ever known, deported by this hateful, racist country,” blah, blah, blah.
But it MUST be done. We must be strong. We must stand firm. We must do it.
And the states can quit sending money to the feds. If the entire IRS wants to descend on these taxpayers, I guess the taxpayers will be waiting for them.
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.
We must follow the law. If we don’t, this nation will fly apart from anarchy.
For me, the most visible cases of lawlessness is the proliferation of illegal aliens throughout the land.
I’m pretty torn on this issue. On the one hand, if our government did it’s job, then this action would not be an issue. In addition, I am willing to admit that our Founders were much more wise than I can even imagine, so I am very hesitent to changing the USSC.
On the other hand, the gov is neglecting to do their duty.
“The actual meaning of “under the jurisdiction” is settled law and it has a known meaning.”
I appreciate your postings and was hoping to see a couple of FReepers debate the issue. I do need the learnin.
That said, your phrase above is meaningless to me. We could also state thet “seperation of church and state” and “legal abortion” are also settled law as interpretations of the USSC. I’d prefer to default to the original intent.
The current ‘interpretation’ of the 14th is wrong!
The man wrote the fourteenth’s citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan:
This amendment which I have offered [citizenship clause to the fourteenth amendment] is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[10]
http://idexer.com/articles/newt_14th.htmc
Thank you. Reading that passage leads me to believe that the “citizenship” question was revolving around a state discussion. I wonder if they were debating how to ensure that all states recognized the citizenship of the remaining states....
Just a guess....
That said, the law need to be changed. Constitution or mere law. The original reason for the 14th automatically granting citizenship is no longer present. It is also from an era where STATES controlled immigration.Actually, states controlled STATE CITIZENSHIP, not immigration. The issue back in the 1800's was that immigrants were allowed into the country by the federal government, but they were failing to acquire state citizenship and the rights granted to them. As a result, Amendment XIV was ratified to ensure everyone who was a U.S. Citizen was also a state citizen and was granted all the rights granted to other state citizens.
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.