The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007

[Dan J 277]

That depends on the country. A child born to US parent(s) outside of the country doesn't automatically gain citizenship

Actually - yes, they do. Children born abroad to US parents are native-born US citizens who

can even run for President. Example: John McCain.

That depends on the country. A child born to US parent(s) outside of the country doesn't automatically gain citizenship, I think military bases are the only exception. The child has a right to citizenship, according to US law, but does not automatically gain it. And if not given citizenship by birth by the country the child was born in, the child is effectively stateless. It depends on the country the child was born in, and what country their parents hold citizenship.

actually it depends on treaties with the host country. for example, my daughter is dual national us-dutch as she was born during an assignment to the netherlands.

You have an EU anchor baby, Charles? :o

There is a diffrent between automatically receiving citizenship and having a right to citizenship.

Children born to us citizens abroad, don't automatically receive US citizenship, but they do have a right to it. Upon meeting the conditions in the law, the child receives citizenship.

[mawilson 2,133]

Children born to us citizens abroad, don't automatically receive US citizenship, but they do have a right to it.

Nooooo.....they are NATURAL-BORN citizens, which means they are US citizens by birth.

No application for citizenship is necessary.

[GaryC 7]

Other than possibly creating a bunch of problems, even some for legal immigration, and making some anti-immigration nuts happy, what does this really solve?

Use the right term there buddy. Thats anti-illegal immigration nuts. I am very much pro legal immigration.

[Dan J 277]

Other than possibly creating a bunch of problems, even some for legal immigration, and making some anti-immigration nuts happy, what does this really solve?

Use the right term there buddy. Thats anti-illegal immigration nuts. I am very much pro legal immigration.

I did use the right term, reversing or changing the 14th amendment does nothing to change the illegal immigrant situation in this country, since most people come here for economic reasons. Instead you cause issues with legal immigrations who have children here and create children who could be considered stateless. Not illegal aliens, simply stateless persons.

You want to do something about illegal immigration? Support increased funding for the one agency who's job it is to deal with immigration enforcement.

[GaryC 7]

Other than possibly creating a bunch of problems, even some for legal immigration, and making some anti-immigration nuts happy, what does this really solve?

Use the right term there buddy. Thats anti-illegal immigration nuts. I am very much pro legal immigration.

I did use the right term, reversing or changing the 14th amendment does nothing to change the illegal immigrant situation in this country, since most people come here for economic reasons. Instead you cause issues with legal immigrations who have children here and create children who could be considered stateless. Not illegal aliens, simply stateless persons.

You want to do something about illegal immigration? Support increased funding for the one agency who's job it is to deal with immigration enforcement.

Right over your head!

[Dan J 277]

Other than possibly creating a bunch of problems, even some for legal immigration, and making some anti-immigration nuts happy, what does this really solve?

Use the right term there buddy. Thats anti-illegal immigration nuts. I am very much pro legal immigration.

I did use the right term, reversing or changing the 14th amendment does nothing to change the illegal immigrant situation in this country, since most people come here for economic reasons. Instead you cause issues with legal immigrations who have children here and create children who could be considered stateless. Not illegal aliens, simply stateless persons.

You want to do something about illegal immigration? Support increased funding for the one agency who's job it is to deal with immigration enforcement.

Right over your head!

You mean yours, since you have trouble seeing that this wont have any effect on illegal immigration. Whats your opposition to increasing the budget of ICE? Since that is the one move that will have the most effect on the problem you are so much against.

[Heracles 417]

This should have been done long ago. The original law was written for a different purpose and needs amending.

Definitely. Australia recently passed a similar law. One of the parents has to be a citizen otherwise citizenship is not automatically granted anymore in AUS..

[Heracles 417]

much ado about nothing...typical poitical bullsh!t....it will not get enough votes in the house much less senate..

this has been the law in the constitution, since this country began...and to change it..is nothing but a knee jerk reaction to failed policies of this country

That attitude is what is keeping America in the dark ages.

Thank God Australia chose a hybrid of the US / UK legal system and constitution. Therefore they do not have to put up with this red tape, aka is it constitutional, #######.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Dan J 277]

much ado about nothing...typical poitical bullsh!t....it will not get enough votes in the house much less senate..

this has been the law in the constitution, since this country began...and to change it..is nothing but a knee jerk reaction to failed policies of this country

That attitude is what is keeping America in the dark ages.

Thank God Australia chose a hybrid of the US / UK legal system and constitution. Therefore they do not have to put up with this red tape, aka is it constitutional, #######.

You keep saying how great Australia is, what are you still doing here?

[Heracles 417]

much ado about nothing...typical poitical bullsh!t....it will not get enough votes in the house much less senate..

this has been the law in the constitution, since this country began...and to change it..is nothing but a knee jerk reaction to failed policies of this country

That attitude is what is keeping America in the dark ages.

Thank God Australia chose a hybrid of the US / UK legal system and constitution. Therefore they do not have to put up with this red tape, aka is it constitutional, #######.

You keep saying how great Australia is, what are you still doing here?

Actually our Aus visa is currently being processed..

PS It is not just me. Have a look at world opinion of the two nations. Just goes to show what 95.4% of the world, who does not live here, thinks of the constitution.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Heracles 417]

much ado about nothing...typical poitical bullsh!t....it will not get enough votes in the house much less senate..

this has been the law in the constitution, since this country began...and to change it..is nothing but a knee jerk reaction to failed policies of this country

That attitude is what is keeping America in the dark ages.

Thank God Australia chose a hybrid of the US / UK legal system and constitution. Therefore they do not have to put up with this red tape, aka is it constitutional, #######.

You keep saying how great Australia is, what are you still doing here?

You know what I love about like minded left wing Americans. You talk a big game about being socialist and wealth distribution etc. But when you are given an example of another nation who is doing this and actually much better than any democrat ever will; You guys cannot take it.

Like the time Michale Moore was rolled when he said Aus, Canada, UK etc have free healthcare but a doctor replied that it is not free any actually paid for through much higher taxes. The fool then wanted to debate with the doctor and basically acted as if he, the doctor, was the idiot.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I guess the framers meant if you give birth on a particular piece of property owned by the government you have rights to it.

How fkcin absurd is that?

Automatic citizenship wasnt the objective of their statements. Hopefully our voices will overide the pandering.

[Dan J 277]

I guess the framers meant if you give birth on a particular piece of property owned by the government you have rights to it.

How fkcin absurd is that?

Automatic citizenship wasnt the objective of their statements. Hopefully our voices will overide the pandering.

The 14th Amendment wasn't written by the original framers of the constitution. Nor was the 2nd, but that was added shortly afterwards.

[Dan J 277]

much ado about nothing...typical poitical bullsh!t....it will not get enough votes in the house much less senate..

this has been the law in the constitution, since this country began...and to change it..is nothing but a knee jerk reaction to failed policies of this country

That attitude is what is keeping America in the dark ages.

Thank God Australia chose a hybrid of the US / UK legal system and constitution. Therefore they do not have to put up with this red tape, aka is it constitutional, #######.

You keep saying how great Australia is, what are you still doing here?

You know what I love about like minded left wing Americans. You talk a big game about being socialist and wealth distribution etc. But when you are given an example of another nation who is doing this and actually much better than any democrat ever will; You guys cannot take it.

Like the time Michale Moore was rolled when he said Aus, Canada, UK etc have free healthcare but a doctor replied that it is not free any actually paid for through much higher taxes. The fool then wanted to debate with the doctor and basically acted as if he, the doctor, was the idiot.

Isn't democracy about participation and working to improve government? Or should we, because another country might be doing those things, leave and immigrate to that country?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I guess the framers meant if you give birth on a particular piece of property owned by the government you have rights to it.

How fkcin absurd is that?

Automatic citizenship wasnt the objective of their statements. Hopefully our voices will overide the pandering.

The 14th Amendment wasn't written by the original framers of the constitution. Nor was the 2nd, but that was added shortly afterwards.

You understand my point! Hiding behind the interpretation of it says even more. Its not rocket science.