The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

...

Do you think a baby born to American parents at a hospital in Saudi Arabia is a Saudi citizen? I'll give you three guesses and the first three don't count.

oh that is just sweet. you want us to be like the Saudis?

No need to get that exotic. Try Germany. A child born to <insert desired non-German nationality> parents in Germany ain't German.

Let's try a broader approach: A child born to <insert desired foreign nationality (a) and/or ( b )> parents in <insert most any country in the world ( c )> ain't a national of country c.

So, as you can see, no need to look to Saudi Arabia for guidance. Just take the majority of nations and try to understand that they are most likely not all wrong while the minority of birthright citizenship countries has it right.

look at it from this angle: America grants citizenship based on where baby is born. America is the greatest country on earth. Other countries other citizenship rules. Other countries have their strenghts and weakneses.

I pick America's way.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

...

Do you think a baby born to American parents at a hospital in Saudi Arabia is a Saudi citizen? I'll give you three guesses and the first three don't count.

oh that is just sweet. you want us to be like the Saudis?

No need to get that exotic. Try Germany. A child born to <insert desired non-German nationality> parents in Germany ain't German.

Let's try a broader approach: A child born to <insert desired foreign nationality (a) and/or ( b )> parents in <insert most any country in the world ©> ain't a national of country c.

So, as you can see, no need to look to Saudi Arabia for guidance. Just take the majority of nations and try to understand that they are most likely not all wrong while the minority of birthright citizenship countries has it right.

If you take that argument, anyone not of Native American decent is not American. The US doesn't have a racial heritage to the country like other countries do. The US was founded on immigration from many different ethnic groups from around the world and is not going to get a way with an exclusionary definition of citizenship.

I just don't follow the logic of granting citizenship to a child born here to a foreign national that was here just on a temporary basis - visiting, whathaveyou - much less that was here and shouldn't have been. Doesn't make any sense to me. I fail to see the value to this country in this mo.

[peejay 327]

If passed, the bill will require parents either to be U.S. citizens, or to be an alien who has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S., or an alien performing active service in the armed forces.

Oh, and this is just dumb. Hope no one ever gets stuck in name checks and has a kid while their AOS is pending. Not to mention the people that have kids while on F-1s, and the adjust to permanent residence through a job years later. Perfectly legal, perfectly contributing, but their kid can be deported.

Bad bad bad bad bad law.

Even if this were to pass, that child would be granted citizenship through the USC parent.

I think it'd be a GREAT thing. They don't call them 'ANCHOR BABIES' for nowt. Think about it.

exactly who calls them 'anchor babies'?

didn't do that one lady much good now did it? anchor. my foot. babies. yes. citizens. yes.

Daniel

:energetic:

Google does.

It might not have helped her see her goal in the end....but it certainly was the reason for a groundswell of support....even now.

Articles designed to report the news now have little editorials in there like 'cruelty' and whatnot. And don't think this is the last we're gonna hear of Elvira.

To quote a so called "immigration activist" interviewed on the news in reference to the Elvira Arellano case, "The inhumane immigration laws of the US are keeping families separated."

Oh...I get it now...the USA is to blame.

Silly me!

As if these folks were accidently and innocently mistaken that paying criminal smugglers to sneak them into the USA in the dead of night to evade the Border Patrol and buying counterfeit documents from criminals on the street corner to work illegally is the proper way to immigrate to the USA (or anywhere else in the modern civilized world for that matter). Gee...isn't that how you become a US citizen? What...after paying $2000+ to a smuggler I don't automatically get permanent residency and a path to citizenship? Oh my...doesn't giving birth to a US citizen entitle me to permanent residency and a path to citizenship?

Whose fault is it and who is to blame...the USA of course.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

... What...after paying $2000+ to a smuggler I don't automatically get permanent residency and a path to citizenship? Oh my...doesn't giving birth to a US citizen entitle me to permanent residency and a path to citizenship? ...

I don't think that understand... Goodness!!!

[Cantankerous 0]

I found this online that I thought would be of interest:

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

Very good material; thank you for the post.

It just seems common sense to me that a child would be considered a citizen of the parents Country. If you are in a Country illegally why would you think your child would automatically become a citizen of that Country? I think most Countries require at least 1 parent to be a citizen in order for a child to become a citizen and I think that would be fair.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

I found this online that I thought would be of interest:

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

Very good material; thank you for the post.

It just seems common sense to me that a child would be considered a citizen of the parents Country. If you are in a Country illegally why would you think your child would automatically become a citizen of that Country? I think most Countries require at least 1 parent to be a citizen in order for a child to become a citizen and I think that would be fair.

Although it may be common sense to you, the law of this country says otherwise. As has been shown numerous times, the constitutional amendment stipulates that all persons born here are citizens of this country. Has nothing to with what you think is common sense or what illegal immigrants think either.

Of course, this being the great nation that it is, you are definitely free to try to change that law.

Be warned though, it is extremely hard to do so. What is the real problem that you ar trying to rectify? There may be other more practical ways of achieving that end.

Daniel

:energetic:

[GaryC 7]

I found this online that I thought would be of interest:

The Unconstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

Very good material; thank you for the post.

It just seems common sense to me that a child would be considered a citizen of the parents Country. If you are in a Country illegally why would you think your child would automatically become a citizen of that Country? I think most Countries require at least 1 parent to be a citizen in order for a child to become a citizen and I think that would be fair.

Although it may be common sense to you, the law of this country says otherwise. As has been shown numerous times, the constitutional amendment stipulates that all persons born here are citizens of this country. Has nothing to with what you think is common sense or what illegal immigrants think either.

Of course, this being the great nation that it is, you are definitely free to try to change that law.

Be warned though, it is extremely hard to do so. What is the real problem that you ar trying to rectify? There may be other more practical ways of achieving that end.

Daniel

:energetic:

If you would read the post you would see that the framers of that amendment did not intend for children of illegals to be granted citizenship. The law has been perverted by later rulings. So in effect it isn't the law but only a interpretation of the law by a judge. That interpretation should be overturned.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I found this online that I thought would be of interest:

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

Very good material; thank you for the post.

It just seems common sense to me that a child would be considered a citizen of the parents Country. If you are in a Country illegally why would you think your child would automatically become a citizen of that Country? I think most Countries require at least 1 parent to be a citizen in order for a child to become a citizen and I think that would be fair.

Very good, how can a non-citizen give birth to one? Especially if the one giving birth broke the law to get here. The law was never supposed to be interpreted this way in my opinion.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

I found this online that I thought would be of interest:

The Unconstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

Very good material; thank you for the post.

It just seems common sense to me that a child would be considered a citizen of the parents Country. If you are in a Country illegally why would you think your child would automatically become a citizen of that Country? I think most Countries require at least 1 parent to be a citizen in order for a child to become a citizen and I think that would be fair.

Although it may be common sense to you, the law of this country says otherwise. As has been shown numerous times, the constitutional amendment stipulates that all persons born here are citizens of this country. Has nothing to with what you think is common sense or what illegal immigrants think either.

Of course, this being the great nation that it is, you are definitely free to try to change that law.

Be warned though, it is extremely hard to do so. What is the real problem that you ar trying to rectify? There may be other more practical ways of achieving that end.

Daniel

:energetic:

If you would read the post you would see that the framers of that amendment did not intend for children of illegals to be granted citizenship. The law has been perverted by later rulings. So in effect it isn't the law but only a interpretation of the law by a judge. That interpretation should be overturned.

GaryC,

if you have read bro Steve's posts you'd be aware that the rulings have allready been made. Couple that with straghtforward reading of the amendment, there is no real other way to interpret it. The post you refer to has comments by politicians or other folks who'd like to spin it to their satisfaction. Then in rich's post, he did a much better job of explaining the whole thing.

Again, you are definitely entitled to your opinion. And have the right to try to change the law. But the fact remains that the constitution is written (and interpreted) in such a way that all persons born in the USA are citizens of USA. Is that not so?

Daniel

:energetic:

[GaryC 7]

I found this online that I thought would be of interest:

The Unconstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

Very good material; thank you for the post.

It just seems common sense to me that a child would be considered a citizen of the parents Country. If you are in a Country illegally why would you think your child would automatically become a citizen of that Country? I think most Countries require at least 1 parent to be a citizen in order for a child to become a citizen and I think that would be fair.

Although it may be common sense to you, the law of this country says otherwise. As has been shown numerous times, the constitutional amendment stipulates that all persons born here are citizens of this country. Has nothing to with what you think is common sense or what illegal immigrants think either.

Of course, this being the great nation that it is, you are definitely free to try to change that law.

Be warned though, it is extremely hard to do so. What is the real problem that you ar trying to rectify? There may be other more practical ways of achieving that end.

Daniel

:energetic:

If you would read the post you would see that the framers of that amendment did not intend for children of illegals to be granted citizenship. The law has been perverted by later rulings. So in effect it isn't the law but only a interpretation of the law by a judge. That interpretation should be overturned.

GaryC,

if you have read bro Steve's posts you'd be aware that the rulings have allready been made. Couple that with straghtforward reading of the amendment, there is no real other way to interpret it. The post you refer to has comments by politicians or other folks who'd like to spin it to their satisfaction. Then in rich's post, he did a much better job of explaining the whole thing.

Again, you are definitely entitled to your opinion. And have the right to try to change the law. But the fact remains that the constitution is written (and miss-interpreted) in such a way that all persons born in the USA are citizens of USA. Is that not so?

Daniel

:energetic:

fixed

And hopefully the mistake the judge made in the interpreting of the amendment will also soon be fixed.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

I found this online that I thought would be of interest:

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

Very good material; thank you for the post.

It just seems common sense to me that a child would be considered a citizen of the parents Country. If you are in a Country illegally why would you think your child would automatically become a citizen of that Country? I think most Countries require at least 1 parent to be a citizen in order for a child to become a citizen and I think that would be fair.

Very good, how can a non-citizen give birth to one? Especially if the one giving birth broke the law to get here. The law was never supposed to be interpreted this way in my opinion.

there have been generally two ways for granting citizenship at birth: by blood and by location (the learned folks can chip in and give the technical terms). The good folks who wrote and approved this amendant chose to go with the 'by location' route. So, your opinion goes against these peoples' opinion.

Daniel

:energetic:

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I found this online that I thought would be of interest:

The Unconstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

Very good material; thank you for the post.

It just seems common sense to me that a child would be considered a citizen of the parents Country. If you are in a Country illegally why would you think your child would automatically become a citizen of that Country? I think most Countries require at least 1 parent to be a citizen in order for a child to become a citizen and I think that would be fair.

Although it may be common sense to you, the law of this country says otherwise. As has been shown numerous times, the constitutional amendment stipulates that all persons born here are citizens of this country. Has nothing to with what you think is common sense or what illegal immigrants think either.

Of course, this being the great nation that it is, you are definitely free to try to change that law.

Be warned though, it is extremely hard to do so. What is the real problem that you ar trying to rectify? There may be other more practical ways of achieving that end.

Daniel

:energetic:

If you would read the post you would see that the framers of that amendment did not intend for children of illegals to be granted citizenship. The law has been perverted by later rulings. So in effect it isn't the law but only a interpretation of the law by a judge. That interpretation should be overturned.

I call BS...Gary, the New World was up for grabs, sh!t! Back then, nobody was talking about protecting borders! My God! If you're gonna bring history into this argument then lets talk about land rights, citizenship and the creation of this nation. Don't be silly.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

I found this online that I thought would be of interest:

The Unconstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

Very good material; thank you for the post.

It just seems common sense to me that a child would be considered a citizen of the parents Country. If you are in a Country illegally why would you think your child would automatically become a citizen of that Country? I think most Countries require at least 1 parent to be a citizen in order for a child to become a citizen and I think that would be fair.

Although it may be common sense to you, the law of this country says otherwise. As has been shown numerous times, the constitutional amendment stipulates that all persons born here are citizens of this country. Has nothing to with what you think is common sense or what illegal immigrants think either.

Of course, this being the great nation that it is, you are definitely free to try to change that law.

Be warned though, it is extremely hard to do so. What is the real problem that you ar trying to rectify? There may be other more practical ways of achieving that end.

Daniel

:energetic:

If you would read the post you would see that the framers of that amendment did not intend for children of illegals to be granted citizenship. The law has been perverted by later rulings. So in effect it isn't the law but only a interpretation of the law by a judge. That interpretation should be overturned.

GaryC,

if you have read bro Steve's posts you'd be aware that the rulings have allready been made. Couple that with straghtforward reading of the amendment, there is no real other way to interpret it. The post you refer to has comments by politicians or other folks who'd like to spin it to their satisfaction. Then in rich's post, he did a much better job of explaining the whole thing.

Again, you are definitely entitled to your opinion. And have the right to try to change the law. But the fact remains that the constitution is written (and miss-interpreted) in such a way that all persons born in the USA are citizens of USA. Is that not so?

Daniel

:energetic:

fixed

And hopefully the mistake the judge made in the interpreting of the amendment will also soon be fixed.

Gary,

I am no law expert by any stretch of the imagination. I do not know if you are. In any case, I find it hard to believe if ONE judge interpreted in such a way that it is deemed wrong by all (or most) judges that his ruling has not been overturned. Why hasn't it? I am sure that there are many 'anti-illiegal immigration' judges out there who'd be willing to do so. But they haven't. Why not? hmmm maybe becuase the ruling is on solid grounds. Thin about it.

Daniel

:energetic:

[GaryC 7]

Gary,

I am no law expert by any stretch of the imagination. I do not know if you are. In any case, I find it hard to believe if ONE judge interpreted in such a way that it is deemed wrong by all (or most) judges that his ruling has not been overturned. Why hasn't it? I am sure that there are many 'anti-illiegal immigration' judges out there who'd be willing to do so. But they haven't. Why not? hmmm maybe becuase the ruling is on solid grounds. Thin about it.

Daniel

:energetic:

Because up until now we didn't have 12-20 million illegals in the country. Before it was a minor point not worth addressing. Now it is.

[GaryC 7]

I call BS...Gary, the New World was up for grabs, sh!t! Back then, nobody was talking about protecting borders! My God! If you're gonna bring history into this argument then lets talk about land rights, citizenship and the creation of this nation. Don't be silly.

Call BS if you want. In the late 1800 we did have immigration laws and the country wasn't up for grabs. This was post civil war, not post revolutionary war. Our borders were set and this law was made to enable former slaves to enjoy their rights to become a citizen. It had nothing to do with immigration, it was perverted into that.