57 Co-Sponsors of Birthright Citizenship Act

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Well, child, I'm going to tell you why you're wrong. (I'm assuming you're a child, because an adult wouldn't resort to name calling and personal attacks. Maybe you didn't learn that in whatever schooling you had).

If your son had been born in Canada, according to Canadian law, he would be eligible for Canadian citizenship as well. Just like American law, which is pretty straightforward.

You can claim that "government schools" taught me this, but this is the law of the land. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized this. Perhaps your homeschooling(?) didn't teach you that.

The precedent is straightforward. There's no arguing that. If you want to change it, amend it. Acting like an asshole on message boards isn't really gonna help your cause out much.

 

[Flopper]

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.

True. Not sure how that applies to immigrations

 

[DiveCon]

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.

True. Not sure how that applies to immigrations

he's a birfer, he's making a case against Obama's citizenship
and failing

 

[thereisnospoon]

More Anti-American Anti-Constitutional Nativist crapola.

what is your objection to insuring legitimacy of citizenship by requiring at least on parent of a child born on US soil be a citizen or a naturalized individual?
"It's unconstitutional" is not an acceptable answer.
Given your side's objection to the non-constitutionality of Obamacare ,you cannot possibly reject the US Constitution on that question while relying on the Constitution on another question.
So, you now have the floor.

 

[DiveCon]

More Anti-American Anti-Constitutional Nativist crapola.

what is your objection to insuring legitimacy of citizenship by requiring at least on parent of a child born on US soil be a citizen or a naturalized individual?
"It's unconstitutional" is not an acceptable answer.
Given your side's objection to the non-constitutionality of Obamacare ,you cannot possibly reject the US Constitution on that question while relying on the Constitution on another question.
So, you now have the floor.

it doesnt even require they be a citizen, just that at least one parent be a legal resident

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

for the same reason why the Left insists Obamacare is legitimate under the Constitution's Commerce clause.
Incidentally, the Framers never anticipated nor did they address the concept of "anchor babies"....They also never envisioned the world becoming so small.
No doubt these issues regarding anchor babies will be decided by the US Supreme Court.
Let us hope common sense is injected into the issue and the right decision is made in the best interest of the nation and it's citizens.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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!"

Immaterial. Next you're going to inject the notion that only Indians are here legally.
Nice try. Won't wash in this discussion.
Why is it you union people are so supportive of illegals? After all, these people are taking YOUR union jobs away by doing work for far less money than the union scale. Nor will they EVER become members of a labor organization.
It is illegal immigrant labor that is driving down the wages for trade type/blue collar work. The very same type work unionists are trying, unsuccessfully I might add, to organize.

 

[thereisnospoon]

An Arizona bill that would put a stop to automatic U.S. citizenship for children of illegal immigrants could come to a vote next week,

Have these people lost their mind? A state legislature is now defining the qualifications for US citizenship.


Bill Denying Birthright Citizenship in Arizona Will Come to a Vote Next Week - Fox News Latino

It's largely ceremonial. and in my opinion a waste of the legislature's time. Such a law would be in violation of the Constitution's "full faith and credit "clause.
I am curious however if a state can deny "State" citizenship to that State......

 

[Avorysuds]

More Anti-American Anti-Constitutional Nativist crapola.

how is this "anti-constitutional"?

To him it sounded good... Like most of his points it was made up on the spot.

 

[Avorysuds]

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!"

Hey, can you prove that any human on the planet earth was not an immigrant by that definition?

BTW, was your quote from the constitution, cuz I can't find it...

 

[DiveCon]

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!"

Hey, can you prove that any human on the planet earth was not an immigrant by that definition?

BTW, was your quote from the constitution, cuz I can't find it...

its from a plaque on the statue of Liberty