The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007

[natty bumppo 297]

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?

Working to improve government lol. How is that, by constantly beating on the not constitutional drum. I have seriously never ever heard of any other country, in the world, beat around the 'not constitutional' bush so much. I have also been here long enought to realise there are very few people left who give a ###### about 'America' anymore. Plus that very few actually care to listen to the other person or look at someone who is doing something better and learn from them.

The country is literally falling apart. Billions in debt. Does not know who the hell is here anymore yet some are still arguing that anyone should be allowed to have an anchor baby here..

better leave today ... after all the country is ... let me get this right .... "literally falling apart"

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

dan, what do you consider to be regulation of a militia?

as for myself, i consider it to be frequent cleaning of the firearms

[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.

It has been taken out of context. Nonetheless, common sense would say something written in the 18 century may need to be amended to reflect the 21st century issue.

Booyah, he knows it! Hiding behind an interpretation that he can twist out of context to make his point. The interpretation will be changed and the leg that he stands on will be removed.

Good thing judges are not like you, they generally think about the repercussions of their actions and would not likely change the interpretation to fit a minority political idealogy. So good luck at getting that constitutional amendment passed.

Very intelligent to interpret the law so mothers have the ability to abandon their children (repercussions) if they so choose. As long as the interpretation fits your argument that you defend. I guess aborting children of any age makes good sense . Doesnt it?

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

better leave today ... after all the country is ... let me get this right .... "literally falling apart"

but we got the patent on duct tape how could the country fall apart?

[natty bumppo 297]

better leave today ... after all the country is ... let me get this right .... "literally falling apart"

but we got the patent on duct tape how could the country fall apart?

maybe it's the ... think they're enabled people ... that are spilling out ?

[Heracles 417]

What have I argued for thats not constitutional? Anchor babies are constitutional, and will remain so, unless congress and the states change the constitution.

So you don't care, what are you doing in this thread?

The difference is I do. I come from a country where our number 1 priority is still our country. Hence why I have been shocked to see so many people here who simply do not give a ###### about America. It is no longer about right or wrong. It is all about 'rights' and being constitutional and what someone can get for nothing.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[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.

It has been taken out of context. Nonetheless, common sense would say something written in the 18 century may need to be amended to reflect the 21st century issue.

Booyah, he knows it! Hiding behind an interpretation that he can twist out of context to make his point. The interpretation will be changed and the leg that he stands on will be removed.

Good thing judges are not like you, they generally think about the repercussions of their actions and would not likely change the interpretation to fit a minority political idealogy. So good luck at getting that constitutional amendment passed.

Very intelligent to interpret the law so mothers have the ability to abandon their children (repercussions) if they so choose. As long as the interpretation fits your argument that you defend. I guess aborting children of any age makes good sense . Doesnt it?

If this discussion gets to parental responsibility or abortion we will get back to you. We are still on the constitutionality of anchor babies and the validity of interpretations of the constitution.

[Heracles 417]

better leave today ... after all the country is ... let me get this right .... "literally falling apart"

You obviously have not traveled outside America or south America for that matter to other developed nations..

[Dan J 277]

What have I argued for thats not constitutional? Anchor babies are constitutional, and will remain so, unless congress and the states change the constitution.

So you don't care, what are you doing in this thread?

The difference is I do. I come from a country where our number 1 priority is still our country. Hence why I have been shocked to see so many people here who simply do not give a ###### about America. It is no longer about right or wrong. It is all about 'rights' and being constitutional and what someone can get for nothing.

The problem with that, is what you may consider not giving a ###### about the country, may be by others opinions just fine. So, more correctly, not enough people care about making the country the way you want it. Which would be correct.

[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.

It has been taken out of context. Nonetheless, common sense would say something written in the 18 century may need to be amended to reflect the 21st century issue.

Booyah, he knows it! Hiding behind an interpretation that he can twist out of context to make his point. The interpretation will be changed and the leg that he stands on will be removed.

Good thing judges are not like you, they generally think about the repercussions of their actions and would not likely change the interpretation to fit a minority political idealogy. So good luck at getting that constitutional amendment passed.

Very intelligent to interpret the law so mothers have the ability to abandon their children (repercussions) if they so choose. As long as the interpretation fits your argument that you defend. I guess aborting children of any age makes good sense . Doesnt it?

If this discussion gets to parental responsibility or abortion we will get back to you. We are still on the constitutionality of anchor babies and the validity of interpretations of the constitution.

You know what I mean!

[Heracles 417]

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.

It has been taken out of context. Nonetheless, common sense would say something written in the 18 century may need to be amended to reflect the 21st century issue.

Booyah, he knows it! Hiding behind an interpretation that he can twist out of context to make his point. The interpretation will be changed and the leg that he stands on will be removed.

Good thing judges are not like you, they generally think about the repercussions of their actions and would not likely change the interpretation to fit a minority political idealogy. So good luck at getting that constitutional amendment passed.

Very intelligent to interpret the law so mothers have the ability to abandon their children (repercussions) if they so choose. As long as the interpretation fits your argument that you defend. I guess aborting children of any age makes good sense . Doesnt it?

Exactly my point. It was common sense in the 18th century that a mother does not abandon her child or abort it. Therefore this common sense stuff was never legislated. Yet in the 21st century people beat their chest about 'right to choose' but when someone's choice leads to them ###### up or being negligent, everyone else in society has to pay for it. Same goes with the 'right' of aborting kids.

Never realized either was common practice in the 18th century or that they suggested people do as they please and then it is up to society to pick up the pieces. EG a mother screwing around and having 4 kids with 4 different fathers then expecting everything for free and for someone else to take care of her kids.

[Heracles 417]

What have I argued for thats not constitutional? Anchor babies are constitutional, and will remain so, unless congress and the states change the constitution.

So you don't care, what are you doing in this thread?

The difference is I do. I come from a country where our number 1 priority is still our country. Hence why I have been shocked to see so many people here who simply do not give a ###### about America. It is no longer about right or wrong. It is all about 'rights' and being constitutional and what someone can get for nothing.

The problem with that, is what you may consider not giving a ###### about the country, may be by others opinions just fine. So, more correctly, not enough people care about making the country the way you want it. Which would be correct.

The way I want it... Lol. It is like your telling me your Audi S6 is ####### and I prefer my F150 pickup truck..

[Donna A 4]

in my husbands country and im sure alot others...if the father is syrian the child is syrian no matter what country he/she is born in. my step daughter was born in saudi arabia but her citizenship is syrian.

[Dan J 277]

What have I argued for thats not constitutional? Anchor babies are constitutional, and will remain so, unless congress and the states change the constitution.

So you don't care, what are you doing in this thread?

The difference is I do. I come from a country where our number 1 priority is still our country. Hence why I have been shocked to see so many people here who simply do not give a ###### about America. It is no longer about right or wrong. It is all about 'rights' and being constitutional and what someone can get for nothing.

The problem with that, is what you may consider not giving a ###### about the country, may be by others opinions just fine. So, more correctly, not enough people care about making the country the way you want it. Which would be correct.

The way I want it... Lol. It is like your telling me your Audi S6 is ####### and I prefer my F150 pickup truck..

No its like telling me I should drive an F150 because you want everyone to drive F150s and everyone who doesn't doesn't care about the country. (Substitute F150's for any recent political debate)

[Dan J 277]

in my husbands country and im sure alot others...if the father is syrian the child is syrian no matter what country he/she is born in. my step daughter was born in saudi arabia but her citizenship is syrian.

Not all countries do that, and some only pass citizenship through the father, if the relationship is legitimized. But generally it depends the countries involved, and the assignment of citizenship may not happen automatically (but only when certain conditions are met).