Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A husband and wife cross the border illegally and the wife gives birth in the USA. Do you believe their child is automatically a US citizen and now the entire family should be allowed to live here?
Promises were made in the 1980's from the politicians then who said the Social Security/Medicare system was solvent until the 2070's. They swore on it. Claude Pepper and Tip O'Neill cursed people who wanted to have part of the massive social security tax increase go into private accounts. Ironically, the more we tax the less we will average per year GDP increase in the economy as we currently are structured.I meant run out of money. 2032.
Starting in 2034, the Social Security administration will run out of the excess reserves it has and will only be able to pay out a portion of a retiree's full benefits — 77% to be exact.
I knew it!!! So I was wrong about them cutting my social security 20%. It will be 23%.
Why is the child a US citizen?The child is a US Citizen, but no, that doesn't automatically give anyone besides the child the right to stay here.
If people are here illegally, their children should not automatically be citizens simply because they are born here. That is crazy.
He said he could not by himself change the law. He did NOT say that he had no latitude as to how it was carried out.
DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted
President Donald Trump has caught a lot of heat for rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with a six-month wind-down. Few people seem aware that he's ending an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens that President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional and legal...www.heritage.org
Show me in the Constitution.Yes, the child is automatically a US citizen according to the US Constitution. That should not mean the whole family gets to live here. I fellow Marine while I was in got his Citizenship and he did not get to move his whole family to the country just because he was now a citizen.
Who says?That is not crazy. That is the only interpretation possible. A unborn fetus is not subject to the jurisdiction of any country until it is born.
Show me in the Constitution.
Why is the child a US citizen?
Who says?
Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”[23]“The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”
thefederalist.com
That doesn't cover the part about parents here illegally. That's why you have to know what the Amendment was for. This Amendment wasn't for children born here to parents here illegally. It was for children born to ex slaves.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.
That doesn't cover the part about parents here illegally. That's why you have to know what the Amendment was for. This Amendment wasn't for children born here to parents here illegally. It was for children born to ex slaves.
The problem we have now is exactly what was predicted could happen. We have illegals giving birth here so the family can stay here. That's the problem.The senators who debated the amendment.
"Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.[22]
In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:
Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”[23]
No Senator took issue with the consensus interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan, and Conness. To be sure, one interpretive dispute did arise. Senators disagreed over whether the Howard amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of Indians. For although Indian tribes resided within U.S. territory, weren’t they also sovereign entities not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress?"
Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment
The Citizenship Clause applies to the children of aliens and citizens alike. But that may not stop Congress from repealing birthright citizenship.
Sure, right after you show me where the 14th Amendment deals with same-sex marriage.Where does it say this in the Amendment?
Show me those words in the Constitution.
The problem we have now is exactly what was predicted could happen. We have illegals giving birth here so the family can stay here. That's the problem.
Sure, right after you show me where the 14th Amendment deals with same-sex marriage.
Trump MUST get back to his roots, get REAL aggressive and really grind on the issue of illegal immigration. “Build That Wall” won him the Oval Office in 2016 and he’ll win again on the same sentiment.
NO legitimate American thinks this nation needs one more illiterate thirdworlder or one more litter of silver tooth anchor babies.
Exclusive: Trump Pledges to End Birthright Citizenship for Illegal Aliens
Donald Trump, the GOP frontrunner for president in 2024, promised if elected to sign an executive order on day one effectively ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.www.breitbart.com
The problem we have now is exactly what was predicted could happen. We have illegals giving birth here so the family can stay here. That's the problem.
Yes, we do because the child is deemed a US citizen. You never heard of "anchor babies"?We do not have to let the family stay here
