57 Co-Sponsors of Birthright Citizenship Act

get_involved

Gold Member
Jul 16, 2009
2,046
430
130
4 More California Members Co-Sponsor Birthright Citizenship Act (Bilbray, Calvert, Campbell & Hunter) | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels


squatdropkm8.jpg
 
More Anti-American Anti-Constitutional Nativist crapola.
how is this "anti-constitutional"?

Because it attempts to change the meaning of the Constitution without amending it.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How can you "interpret" that differently?
 
More Anti-American Anti-Constitutional Nativist crapola.
how is this "anti-constitutional"?

Because it attempts to change the meaning of the Constitution without amending it.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How can you "interpret" that differently?
no, it does not
it is using the constitution where it gives congress the right to define it by statute

further more, if an illegal alien is suject to the jurisdiction of their home country, they are not under ours
thats how they can be deported
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many on this board can actually prove that their ancestors did not come here illegally?

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
 
how is this "anti-constitutional"?

Because it attempts to change the meaning of the Constitution without amending it.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How can you "interpret" that differently?
no, it does not
it is using the constitution where it gives congress the right to define it by statute

further more, if an illegal alien is suject to the jurisdiction of their home country, they are not under ours
thats how they can be deported

You realize that that's the same bullshit reasoning that some on the left to use for Gun Control, right?

If the Constitution says, very clearly, that everyone born in the US is a citizen, passing a law that changed that would be as unconstitutional as banning guns.

as for your "further more": A child born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the country they were born in, not their parent's home country.
 
Last edited:
Because it attempts to change the meaning of the Constitution without amending it.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How can you "interpret" that differently?
no, it does not
it is using the constitution where it gives congress the right to define it by statute

further more, if an illegal alien is suject to the jurisdiction of their home country, they are not under ours
thats how they can be deported

You realize that that's the same bullshit reasoning that some on the left to use for Gun Control, right?

If the Constitution says, very clearly, that everyone born in the US is a citizen, passing a law that changed that would be as unconstitutional as banning guns.

as for your "further more": A child born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the country they were born in, not their parent's home country.
no, it is not
gun control is a totally different thing
and the child is subject to the parents
and the constitution gives the congress the right to define it
 
I don't give a flying fuck if it takes a complete constitutional amendment.
It needs to be changed.
This automatic citizenship for illegals was not the intent of the 14th amendment.

I'm certain the left will argue that point, but again, that's my opinion and I still don't give a flying fuck.
 
no, it does not
it is using the constitution where it gives congress the right to define it by statute

further more, if an illegal alien is suject to the jurisdiction of their home country, they are not under ours
thats how they can be deported

You realize that that's the same bullshit reasoning that some on the left to use for Gun Control, right?

If the Constitution says, very clearly, that everyone born in the US is a citizen, passing a law that changed that would be as unconstitutional as banning guns.

as for your "further more": A child born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the country they were born in, not their parent's home country.
no, it is not
gun control is a totally different thing
How so? I've literally heard the same argument, word for word.
and the child is subject to the parents
and the constitution gives the congress the right to define it

So if Congress passed a law that said people with blue eyes were no longer citizens, it would be Constitutional?
 
Most of the bills in the House will never be voted on. It's just a way for house members to make a statement so they can tell voters they fulfilled their promise.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top