57 Co-Sponsors of Birthright Citizenship Act

[Twin Fist]

i dont care what they have to do to stop it, but the practice of "anchor babies" has got to stop

 

[gekaap]

i always have to wonder why people who say they are all for the constitution want to change it so much.

And that's not a dig at my friend Ollie, it's just an observation, in general.

I think that there's a difference in being "for the constitution" in that you respect it and uphold it as our supreme law, and being "for the constitution" as if it were inerrant and perfect. After all, part of the constitution is a provision for changes to be made, so being "for the constitution" also means being for changes to occur if they happen in the prescribed manner.

 

[SFC Ollie]

While it is true that a State can pass any law it wants, this will never make it past the first constitutional challenge. However, if enough states passed similar laws then we could get a constitutional change. And I for one would support it.

No, the states could not pass laws of this effect either. State cannot take away what the federal constitution gives.

he said it wouldn't pass constitutional muster. i think he's wondering if there's a movement toward a constitutional amendment.

i always have to wonder why people who say they are all for the constitution want to change it so much.

And that's not a dig at my friend Ollie, it's just an observation, in general.

Actually there is another amendment that I want passed also. Remember the writers of the Constitution left it so it could be changed for a reason. It isn't easy to do, and that was done for a reason also. We shouldn't take changing it lightly. And I don't. It's even possible that someone could change my mind on it. Doubtful but possible.

 

[gekaap]

You misunderstand my point. If so many states pass similar laws it would, could, and should lead to a Constitutional Convention. (If that is the correct term) there are (if i remember right) several ways to get an amendment.

I think I understand what you're getting at.

The constitution can be amended either by a 2/3 vote from both Houses proposing an amendment, or by 2/3 of each state legislature appealing to Congress for a constitutional convention that may propose amendments. In both cases, the proposals must be then ratified by 3/4 of the states legislatures.

So, enough states simply passing such measures would not be enough to invoke a convention. But if the sentiment becomes popular in enough states, then yes it could possibly lead to a constitutional convention, and rightfully so.

 

[Flopper]

While it is true that a State can pass any law it wants, this will never make it past the first constitutional challenge. However, if enough states passed similar laws then we could get a constitutional change. And I for one would support it.

Yes, states passing laws that are clearly unconstitutional are a way of bring the issue to the forefront. This happened with the 26th amendment that gave 18 year olds the right to vote.

If 12 states legislatures don't ratify, a birthright amendment, it fails. I doubt a constitution amendment changing the qualifications for citizenship would ever pass for the following reasons:

There are many states where illegal immigration is not a priority issue and would see reforming immigration law and more rigid enforcement as the answer to illegal immigration.

For the amendment to pass Congress, it would require a super majority vote in both houses of Congress. The last super majority in Congress was in 1977 and it was a Democratic congress.

There is virtually no creditable statistics that shows that children of illegal immigrants born in the US are a major part of the problem. INS can and has deported illegal immigrant families with babies born in the US. The parents have the option of taking the children born in the US, appointing a guardian, or leaving the children.

 

[jgarden]

4 More California Members Co-Sponsor Birthright Citizenship Act (Bilbray, Calvert, Campbell & Hunter) | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels

The Republicans can see the "writing" on the wall - by 2050, "white" Americans that form the "base" of the GOP/Tea Party will be in the minority.

This is an attempt to limit the impact of the Hispanics, which will double there numbers to 30% of the population by 2050!

Is it just a coincidence that Hispanics, like most immigrants, have a history of voting for Democrats?

 

[USArmyRetired]

In 1898, Justice Horace Gray wrote one of the most controversial opinions in Supreme Court history wherein a man born in the United States of Chinese alien parents was held to be a citizen. Wong Kim Ark is the precedent relied upon for the assertion that any person born on United States soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen. But that's not accurate. The holding in Wong Kim Ark appears to require for citizenship that a person be born on United States soil to parents who are permanently domiciled here. If the domicile requirement is upheld in future cases, anchor babies will no longer be assumed to be United States citizens. Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was "natural born." In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett. While the dissent feared the majority holding would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president, Justice Gray's restatement of the Minor Court's definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent's fear

 

[SFC Ollie]

4 More California Members Co-Sponsor Birthright Citizenship Act (Bilbray, Calvert, Campbell & Hunter) | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels

The Republicans can see the "writing" on the wall - by 2050, "white" Americans that form the "base" of the GOP/Tea Party will be in the minority.

This is an attempt to limit the impact of the Hispanics, which will double there numbers to 30% of the population by 2050!

Is it just a coincidence that Hispanics, like most immigrants, have a history of voting for Democrats?

That's more BS than I've heard in a long time. No one is making any attempt at limiting the number of Hispanics. And i would love to see your stats on "most immigrants".

 

[Flopper]

4 More California Members Co-Sponsor Birthright Citizenship Act (Bilbray, Calvert, Campbell & Hunter) | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels

The Republicans can see the "writing" on the wall - by 2050, "white" Americans that form the "base" of the GOP/Tea Party will be in the minority.

This is an attempt to limit the impact of the Hispanics, which will double there numbers to 30% of the population by 2050!

Is it just a coincidence that Hispanics, like most immigrants, have a history of voting for Democrats?

That's more BS than I've heard in a long time. No one is making any attempt at limiting the number of Hispanics. And i would love to see your stats on "most immigrants".

Republicans favor deportation of illegal immigrants and oppose amnesty and increased quotes. These measures will reduce the number of Hispanics. Since 60% of the Hispanics register as Democrats, there is certainly an incentive for Republicans to take this stand on these issues.

In 40 years 54% of Americans will be minorities. With less than 40% of the Hispanics registering as Republicans and only 7% of the Blacks, Republicans are going to have to find a way to appeal to minorities otherwise Democrat are going control government in last half of this century.

Minorities expected to be majority in 2050 - CNN
Black conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gekaap]

You know, if "most" immigrants vote democratic, then why are Texas and Arizona two of the most committed red states in the country? In my experience, there are a great many Hispanics who are of the conservative and/or GOP persuasion. It makes sense, if you think about it. Many Mexicans are committed Catholics, and Mexican culture is very old fashioned by American standards when it comes to ideas of gender roles and gender equality. Women serve their men. These Hispanics find more appeal from the modern religious right and values platforms aligned with the GOP than the Democrats can ofter with same sex marriage and take your child to work day.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You know, if "most" immigrants vote democratic, then why are Texas and Arizona two of the most committed red states in the country? In my experience, there are a great many Hispanics who are of the conservative and/or GOP persuasion. It makes sense, if you think about it. Many Mexicans are committed Catholics, and Mexican culture is very old fashioned by American standards when it comes to ideas of gender roles and gender equality. Women serve their men. These Hispanics find more appeal from the modern religious right and values platforms aligned with the GOP than the Democrats can ofter with same sex marriage and take your child to work day.

72% of American of Hispanic descent voted for Bill Clinton in 1992

67% of Americans of Hispanic descent voted for Obama in 2008.

The Republican party is gaining support among Hispanics, but the majority of them still vote Democratic.

 

[USArmyRetired]

If the United States would bring back President Eisenhowers 'Operation Wetback' on a grand scale, we wouldn't be having these problems with anchor babies. It worked under Ike.

 

[gekaap]

72% of American of Hispanic descent voted for Bill Clinton in 1992

67% of Americans of Hispanic descent voted for Obama in 2008.

The Republican party is gaining support among Hispanics, but the majority of them still vote Democratic.

So your limited information tells us that most Hispanics voted for the two most recent Democratic Presidents. Of course the election of 2004 saw only 53% of Hispanics vote in favor of the Democratic candidate. It's also worth taking into consideration the points I mentioned before about Texas and AZ being committed red states. In fact, Texas has not elected a Democrat to a state wide office in more than a decade. Of course, I'm not saying that Hispanics are predominantly Republican either. Just that they are not so overwhelmingly Democrat as is being suggested.

 

[Claudette]

4 More California Members Co-Sponsor Birthright Citizenship Act (Bilbray, Calvert, Campbell & Hunter) | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels

Unconstitutional.

The only way to prevent anchor babies is to amend the Constitution.

I tend to agree.

It will take an amendment to settle the dispute.

Since both parties are looking for the Hispanic vote I'm not holding my breath for that ammendment.

They don't give a shit what these illegalsb cost we taxpayers in Social Services every year.

The Hispanic vote is all they care about.

 

[Flopper]

72% of American of Hispanic descent voted for Bill Clinton in 1992

67% of Americans of Hispanic descent voted for Obama in 2008.

The Republican party is gaining support among Hispanics, but the majority of them still vote Democratic.

So your limited information tells us that most Hispanics voted for the two most recent Democratic Presidents. Of course the election of 2004 saw only 53% of Hispanics vote in favor of the Democratic candidate. It's also worth taking into consideration the points I mentioned before about Texas and AZ being committed red states. In fact, Texas has not elected a Democrat to a state wide office in more than a decade. Of course, I'm not saying that Hispanics are predominantly Republican either. Just that they are not so overwhelmingly Democrat as is being suggested.

This country is becoming more Hispanic, more Black, more Islamic, more Buddhist, and more multilingual. By 2050 the country will be mostly minorities. If the Republican party is to continue to be a strong political force as we move further into the 21st century, the party is going have to reach out to these people. So many of the attitudes and issues that conservatives support tend to exclude rather than include these minorities. Among so many minorities, the Republican party is increasing view as the White Christian party with little tolerance for those who do not fit into an America that no longer exists.

 

[SFC Ollie]

72% of American of Hispanic descent voted for Bill Clinton in 1992

67% of Americans of Hispanic descent voted for Obama in 2008.

The Republican party is gaining support among Hispanics, but the majority of them still vote Democratic.

So your limited information tells us that most Hispanics voted for the two most recent Democratic Presidents. Of course the election of 2004 saw only 53% of Hispanics vote in favor of the Democratic candidate. It's also worth taking into consideration the points I mentioned before about Texas and AZ being committed red states. In fact, Texas has not elected a Democrat to a state wide office in more than a decade. Of course, I'm not saying that Hispanics are predominantly Republican either. Just that they are not so overwhelmingly Democrat as is being suggested.

This country is becoming more Hispanic, more Black, more Islamic, more Buddhist, and more multilingual. By 2050 the country will be mostly minorities. If the Republican party is to continue to be a strong political force as we move further into the 21st century, the party is going have to reach out to these people. So many of the attitudes and issues that conservatives support tend to exclude rather than include these minorities. Among so many minorities, the Republican party is increasing view as the White Christian party with little tolerance for those who do not fit into an America that no longer exists.

Which specific attitudes and issues is it that exclude anyone because of their race?

 

[bodecea]

More Anti-American Anti-Constitutional Nativist crapola.

How ironic that Bilbray signs on. He ran for Duke Cunningham's seat here in North San Diego Co. while at the same time having signed a document swearing he was a Virginia resident so his daughter would get in-state tuition for a VA college.

 

[The Joe]

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?

Obviously reading comprehension wasn't your strong point in government schools. Now I will teach you why they failed you. Had you correctly comprehended what it was you just quoted, you would understand what resides means and had resisted the urge to show your ignorance.. Just because you where born in a city/state/country/continent, it does not mean you reside there. Example of this would be when my wife and I went to Canada when she was pregnant. Had she given birth to our son while we were in Canada, he would still be an American because we reside in America. Another example of this would be if we had our son in our neighbor's house. Just because he was born in our neighbor's house, it doesn't justify me making a claim for ownership of their home.

 

[Flopper]

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?

Obviously reading comprehension wasn't your strong point in government schools. Now I will teach you why they failed you. Had you correctly comprehended what it was you just quoted, you would understand what resides means and had resisted the urge to show your ignorance.. Just because you where born in a city/state/country/continent, it does not mean you reside there. Example of this would be when my wife and I went to Canada when she was pregnant. Had she given birth to our son while we were in Canada, he would still be an American because we reside in America. Another example of this would be if we had our son in our neighbor's house. Just because he was born in our neighbor's house, it doesn't justify me making a claim for ownership of their home.

Section 1. 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.

Which clearly means:

If the conditions, you are born in the United States or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. you are:
1. A citizen of the United States
2. A citizen of the state you reside.

So unless you had diplomatic immunity when you were born, you are a citizen of the U.S. if born in the U.S.

In your example of you and your pregnant wife in Canada giving birth to a child, the child is a US citizen not because you reside in the U.S. but rather both parents are U.S. citizens. If only one of you is a citizen, the child can still be a citizen if certain requirements are met. This is specified in Title 8 of the U.S. Code not the Constitution.

 

[USArmyRetired]

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?

Obviously reading comprehension wasn't your strong point in government schools. Now I will teach you why they failed you. Had you correctly comprehended what it was you just quoted, you would understand what resides means and had resisted the urge to show your ignorance.. Just because you where born in a city/state/country/continent, it does not mean you reside there. Example of this would be when my wife and I went to Canada when she was pregnant. Had she given birth to our son while we were in Canada, he would still be an American because we reside in America. Another example of this would be if we had our son in our neighbor's house. Just because he was born in our neighbor's house, it doesn't justify me making a claim for ownership of their home.

Section 1. 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.

Which clearly means:

If the conditions, you are born in the United States or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. you are:
1. A citizen of the United States
2. A citizen of the state you reside.

So unless you had diplomatic immunity when you were born, you are a citizen of the U.S. if born in the U.S.

In your example of you and your pregnant wife in Canada giving birth to a child, the child is a US citizen not because you reside in the U.S. but rather both parents are U.S. citizens. If only one of you is a citizen, the child can still be a citizen if certain requirements are met. This is specified in Title 8 of the U.S. Code not the Constitution.

One thing though, a 14th Amendment citizen is not a Natural Born Citizen.