How many nations OFFER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP?

[get_involved]

HERE ARE ALL THE DEVELOPED NATIONS OF THE WORLD
THAT OFFER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO THE BABIES
OF TOURISTS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS:

United States

That's right, every other modern Developed nation in the world has gotten rid of birthright
citizenship policies.

Yet, most of U.S. news media and politicians the last two weeks have ridiculed the comments by some other politicians that it is time for the U.S. to put an end to birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal aliens.

The U.S. stands alone.

U.S. Is Last Remaining Developed Nation Giving Birthright Citizenship To Tourists & Illegal Aliens | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels


67 percent of Arizonans believe American-born babies of undocumented immigrants should not get citizenship status.

Rasmussen poll: Immigrant babies should not get citizenship - Phoenix Business Journal

 

[Liberty]

this kind of common sense will never work on the sheep.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. And this nation has been allowing this *Total Stupidity* from the beginning.
2. So there is plenty of blame to go around.
3. Blame the bastards up there now!
4. But also blame the bastards who are dead and gone, dumb bastards everyone!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Tom Clancy]

I thought we weren't suppose to be like other countries?

 

[zzzz]

Duh! Are we supposed to model this county like other countries around the world? NOT!

The US is different from other countries in that we are a country of immigrants. Was your forefather a citizen or an alien? This is why we have this amendment in the constitution.

 

[ConHog]

Duh! Are we supposed to model this county like other countries around the world? NOT!

The US is different from other countries in that we are a country of immigrants. Was your forefather a citizen or an alien? This is why we have this amendment in the constitution.

Umm pretty much EVERY nation on Earth started out as nation of immigrants, but at some decided they needed to regulate the population. Or do you purport that every country but the US was pre populated?

 

[Luissa]

I thought you guys didn't want to be like Europe, or any of those other countries?

 

[ConHog]

I thought you guys didn't want to be like Europe, or any of those other countries?

and I thought YOU wanted to be like Canada?

 

[Luissa]

I thought you guys didn't want to be like Europe, or any of those other countries?

and I thought YOU wanted to be like Canada?

I did?

I guess I do like the fact they can have a higher alcohol content in their beer.

 

[get_involved]

Duh! Are we supposed to model this county like other countries around the world? NOT!

The US is different from other countries in that we are a country of immigrants. Was your forefather a citizen or an alien? This is why we have this amendment in the constitution.

 

[Modbert]

I thought we weren't suppose to be like other countries?

What will they be suggesting next? That we be like those socialist Europeans?

 

[Madeline]

How is this information (if accurate) useful? Is someone considering being reborn elsewhere?

BTW, what becomes of babies born in other countries? How do they become citizens, if not by birth?

 

[edthecynic]

So much for the phony claim that CON$ are strict Constitutionalists.

 

[Madeline]

First marriage, now the 14th Amendment. Apparently anything that is an apparent impediment is getting jettisoned this week by A Certain Faction.

BTW, you guys are forgetting the 5th. May as well clean house.

 

[Ravi]

How is this information (if accurate) useful? Is someone considering being reborn elsewhere?

BTW, what becomes of babies born in other countries? How do they become citizens, if not by birth?

They don't. They become stateless beings and grow up and riot. See France.

 

[ConHog]

So much for the phony claim that CON$ are strict Constitutionalists.

Psst The COTUS can be amended, so asking for it to be amended IS being a constitutionalists , moron.


Now if someone out there is saying let's change the COTUS AND strip anyone who made a citizen under the anchor baby rule of their citizenship then they are as foolish as you. I just don't see many, if any, advocating that.

 

[edthecynic]

So much for the phony claim that CON$ are strict Constitutionalists.

Psst The COTUS can be amended, so asking for it to be amended IS being a constitutionalists , moron.


Now if someone out there is saying let's change the COTUS AND strip anyone who made a citizen under the anchor baby rule of their citizenship then they are as foolish as you. I just don't see many, if any, advocating that.

From the first link in the OP:

Notice we are asking to change the "law" and not the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

H.R. 1868 by Rep. Gary Miller of California would merely change the federal law (passed by Congress) that currently requires giving U.S. citizenship to these babies.

We and many Constitutional scholars do not believe a Constitutional Amendment is required. But we also know that as soon as H.R. 1868 is passed there will be suits taking it to the Supreme Court. We believe the Supremes are likely to agree with us that H.R. 1868 does not violate any part of the Constitution.

 

[zzzz]

Duh! Are we supposed to model this county like other countries around the world? NOT!

The US is different from other countries in that we are a country of immigrants. Was your forefather a citizen or an alien? This is why we have this amendment in the constitution.

Umm pretty much EVERY nation on Earth started out as nation of immigrants, but at some decided they needed to regulate the population. Or do you purport that every country but the US was pre populated?

Yes, the world was populated by human migration. My point was the US was populated (or invaded) just a few hundred years ago. So we are relatively a young population compared to Europe, Africa and Asia.

I don't like arguments/discussions that compare the US to other countries. The US is, to me anyway, a special place. Though we have problems here we always seem to work our way out (Deficit notwithstanding) of the problems.

This problem of children born in the US of parents who are not citizens and automatically gaining citizenship does not only deal with illegal aliens. It involves aliens here legally as well and people who are here trying to become citizens. That is what concerns me. For example, if a husband and wife move here legally from England and they are trying to become citizens and they have a baby before taking the oath should that baby be a citizen? Right now the baby would be a citizen but changing the 14th could stop this. Would it be right that in a few days the parents are US citizens and their child isn’t? This is what concerns me about changing the 14th. There are many more scenarios that would need to be looked at too.

To just eliminate the children of illegal aliens is something that needs to be addressed by legal action. I would think that if they are here illegally they are not covered by the US Constitution. Recent decisions by the SC in dealing with terrorists and rights would seem to indicate that they might rule that illegal alien children have no right to citizenship. All that is needed is a federal court action to take an illegal’s citizenship by ruling they are not covered by the US Constitution to get the ball rolling. This is the path to take not amending the constitution.

 

[AquaAthena]

this kind of common sense will never work on the sheep.

True. I am glad John Boehner is publicly addressing his intent to reverse that although it will go nowhere. This truly IS the Land of the Free....

 

[ConHog]

So much for the phony claim that CON$ are strict Constitutionalists.

Psst The COTUS can be amended, so asking for it to be amended IS being a constitutionalists , moron.


Now if someone out there is saying let's change the COTUS AND strip anyone who made a citizen under the anchor baby rule of their citizenship then they are as foolish as you. I just don't see many, if any, advocating that.

From the first link in the OP:

Notice we are asking to change the "law" and not the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

H.R. 1868 by Rep. Gary Miller of California would merely change the federal law (passed by Congress) that currently requires giving U.S. citizenship to these babies.

We and many Constitutional scholars do not believe a Constitutional Amendment is required. But we also know that as soon as H.R. 1868 is passed there will be suits taking it to the Supreme Court. We believe the Supremes are likely to agree with us that H.R. 1868 does not violate any part of the Constitution.

and how exactly is that unconstitutional? I happen to disagree and think that at the very least we need a SCOTUS ruling on the applicability of the 14th to so called anchor babies and not another law, but I fail to see how this is unconstitutional.