The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007

[mawilson 2,133]

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.

Gary, but stripping their babies of citizenship is not gonna make them go away.

It's not like they come here to wait for 20+ years until their children are old

enough to file petitions.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

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.

Gary,

I am not very old nor very young. So I have limited historical perspective on this. But besides being a problem now, I can attest that it was a problem back when Reagan was in office too. I am sure peejay can vouch for that. Why wasn't it fixed back then?

Daniel

:energetic:

[Dan J 277]

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.

Gary, but stripping their babies of citizenship is not gonna make them go away.

It's not like they come here to wait for 20+ years until their children are old

enough to file petitions.

I'm still trying to figure out how stuff like this keeps coming up as a solution to illegal immigration when the impact is minimal at best. Where is the discussion for increasing the budget and capacity for ICE?

[Sheriff Uling 3]

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.

You are preaching to the choir, but I love it. Hopefully, this will go somewhere. IMO this would be a step in the right direction toward discouraging illegal immigration.

[GaryC 7]

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.

Gary, but stripping their babies of citizenship is not gonna make them go away.

It's not like they come here to wait for 20+ years until their children are old

enough to file petitions.

No one is talking about stripping anyone of their citizenship, just stop granting it by virtue of being born here. It will remove at least some of the incentive for these people. Anchor babies is one of the avenues that the illegals use to remain even though they haven't the right. Thankfully it is starting to not work but it did for a long time because of the bad publicity of "breaking up families". It would also eliminate all this BS talk of "breaking up families" when they are caught. They all go back then and no breaking up happens.

[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.

You are preaching to the choir, but I love it. Hopefully, this will go somewhere. IMO this would be a step in the right direction toward discouraging illegal immigration.

how would it discourage ilegal immigration?

Daniel

:energetic:

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

But besides being a problem now, I can attest that it was a problem back when Reagan was in office too. I am sure peejay can vouch for that. Why wasn't it fixed back then?

Daniel

:energetic:

maybe no one thought it was a problem, kinda like today

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

But besides being a problem now, I can attest that it was a problem back when Reagan was in office too. I am sure peejay can vouch for that. Why wasn't it fixed back then?

Daniel

:energetic:

maybe no one thought it was a problem, kinda like today

Believe me, it was considered a problem. How old are you? too young to have experience or too old and are losing the memory cells?

Daniel

:energetic:

[Sheriff Uling 3]

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.

You are preaching to the choir, but I love it. Hopefully, this will go somewhere. IMO this would be a step in the right direction toward discouraging illegal immigration.

how would it discourage ilegal immigration?

Daniel

:energetic:

It would be step forward in discouraging illegal immigration and not the end to the means. There still other measures that have to be in place and working... Right now, we don't have that!

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

But besides being a problem now, I can attest that it was a problem back when Reagan was in office too. I am sure peejay can vouch for that. Why wasn't it fixed back then?

Daniel

:energetic:

maybe no one thought it was a problem, kinda like today

Believe me, it was considered a problem. How old are you? too young to have experience or too old and are losing the memory cells?

Daniel

:energetic:

ah a swipe at age, either too young to know better or too old and done forgot.

i'm probably about the same age as you, 45.

[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.

You are preaching to the choir, but I love it. Hopefully, this will go somewhere. IMO this would be a step in the right direction toward discouraging illegal immigration.

how would it discourage ilegal immigration?

Daniel

:energetic:

It would be step forward in discouraging illegal immigration and not the end to the means. There still other measures that have to be in place and working... Right now, we don't have that!

honestly, why do youthink most illegal immigrants immigrate here illegaly?

Daniel

:energetic:

[Cantankerous 0]

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:

Yes, I know the law, as I previously posted a reference to why and when the 14th Amendment was ratified. I am commenting on how I think it would be fair to further clarify the Amendment as it seems people do not understand it’s definition; even though it was clearly described by it’s co-author.

The 14th Amendment was spelled out in 1866 by Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of its citizenship clause, who wrote "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

I believe the illegal alien parents of anchor-baby generally believe they have a right to stay in the US because they have a child who is a US citizen. Take Elvira Arellano for example who said "Saulito (Little Saul) is an American citizen. He has the right to stay in his own country. Being his mom, I have the right to stay here and take care of him."

I believe there is an unnecessary and expensive burden placed upon the US by anchor-babies as their parents are not citizens, have not been subject to a medical evaluation or a criminal background check and now remain in the Country with their US citizen child, the child may qualify for public health assistance, welfare, goes to public school, etc. etc., and all because your have a child that is a citizen without even 1 parent being a citizen.

If you deport the parents and the child you are deporting a US citizen? How does that work? Then the child is in another Country and he or she is not a citizen of that Country?

It really makes no sense to me at all.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

But besides being a problem now, I can attest that it was a problem back when Reagan was in office too. I am sure peejay can vouch for that. Why wasn't it fixed back then?

Daniel

:energetic:

maybe no one thought it was a problem, kinda like today

Believe me, it was considered a problem. How old are you? too young to have experience or too old and are losing the memory cells?

Daniel

:energetic:

ah a swipe at age, either too young to know better or too old and done forgot.

i'm probably about the same age as you, 45.

*ahem* *cough* *i'll pul a charles on you* actually you are older than I. call me young whippersnapper.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Sheriff Uling 3]

honestly, why do youthink most illegal immigrants immigrate here illegaly?

Daniel

:energetic:

Why?

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

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.

You can't cherry pick history (see, Mexico's War of Independence, Mexican-American War), Gary and that's just what you're doing. Sheez...I've brought up history before with regard to immigration and was told that it's no longer relative. I've heard more than one person here making reference to the historical intentions of the 14th Amendment and right to citizenship.