57 Co-Sponsors of Birthright Citizenship Act

[xsited1]

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'll have to disagree with you there. It's all here:

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Happy reading.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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'll have to disagree with you there. It's all here:

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Happy reading.

Because Fred Elbel is such an unbiased Constitutional expert, right?

 

[jillian]

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'll have to disagree with you there. It's all here:

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Happy reading.

perhaps a legitimate scholarly work on the subject would be more compelling than some rightwingnut bloggers opinion?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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 subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, they are not under ours
that's how they can be deported

The jurisdiction argument is quite a stretch. I doubt they'll be able to get the SCOTUS to see it that way.

 

[DiveCon]

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 subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, they are not under ours
that's how they can be deported

The jurisdiction argument is quite a stretch. I doubt they'll be able to get the SCOTUS to see it that way.

i'm not saying that is the argument they will make

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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 subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, they are not under ours
that's how they can be deported

The jurisdiction argument is quite a stretch. I doubt they'll be able to get the SCOTUS to see it that way.

i'm not saying that is the argument they will make

I'm not sure what other argument you could make. The amendment is pretty self-explanatory.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The jurisdiction argument is quite a stretch. I doubt they'll be able to get the SCOTUS to see it that way.

i'm not saying that is the argument they will make

I'm not sure what other argument you could make. The amendment is pretty self-explanatory.

Yes.

I don't think I have a very fixed opinion on the topic, but the only way to end birthright citizenship in this country would be an amendment.

Interest groups are going to claim that there are ways around it - just like the anti-gun nuts claim you can "interpret" the 2nd Amendment to ban private ownership of guns, and the Christian nutcase who "interpret" the First Amendment to mean the US is a "Christian Nation".

 

[DiveCon]

Since the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Congress has defined Birthright Citizenship through appropriate legislation, which for decades has granted citizenship to newborns with both parents illegal aliens, foreign tourists or temporary foreign workers and students. The Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the right to define birthright citizenship differently.
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 would add to the existing federal code a provision that requires at least one parent of a new born to be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident in order for the new born to receive automatic citizenship.
The United States is one of two industrialized nations (Canada) to offer Birthright Citizenship.

that covers it right there

 

[get_involved]

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!"

That quote on the Statue of Liberty was never there when the French gave it to us. It was added well into the 20th Century. Added not by a vote of the people but by a pro-immgration poet who somehow successfully lobbied to get it snuck in.

Besides, there is quite a difference between immigration over 100 years ago and now. 100 years ago there was still vast unsettled territory and absolutely no welfare state. People came here to work. Even then we kept a close eye on immigration and even passed the fair and level-headed national origins immigration act in 1925. We need that act re-instated.

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty is—poetry on a work of art—not a law or government policy of the USA.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I am from Beta Triangula 6. Where would they deport me to?

A psych ward!

 

[Flopper]

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'll have to disagree with you there. It's all here:

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Happy reading.

I disagree.

14th Amendment:
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.

You can argue that what was written was not the intent. That might hold up if this were a generality or unclear but this statement is very specific and is not ambiguous in any way. If you want to change the constitution, you going to have to amend it.

LOL

 

[Flopper]

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

 

[DiveCon]

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

now THAT one will not pass constitutional muster

 

[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.

 

[gekaap]

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

No, the constitution gives Congress the power to ENFORCE the 14th amendment through legislation. It does not give Congress the power to define the terms of the amendment. A natural born citizen, as that phrase is used by the constitution, is defined by the pre-existing Common Law of England, according to the SCOTUS. Changing this would itself require an amendment to the constitution.

The Supreme Court has already long ago established that being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US means that the person owes loyalty to the US by means of the US owing protection to the person for being present within that jurisdiction. The idea of not being subject to the jurisdiction of the US refers to foreign ambassadors or visiting foreign officials who carry within themselves the sovereignty of their nation of origin, or who are present within the geographical limits of the US, but whose embassy is legally under the jurisdiction of a foreign power. It also refers to certain Native American nations recognized by the government.

Thus, this proposed bill would be unconstitutional if passed. Changing the anchor baby loophole (and I very much believe that it needs to be changed) will require a constitutional amendment.

 

[gekaap]

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

changing the constitution was designed into it
it is not unconstitutional to amend it

 

[DiveCon]

btw, what this bill will amend is the civil rights act of 1866