GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
I view this as posturing for the 2006 elections, and nothing more. If memory serves me right, they will need to change the constitution to end "birthright citizenship." If they try try to change the constitution, then maybe, I'll believe them. I see no problem with "birthright citizeship" for LEGAL aliens.
As for the fence, damn right.

GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship
By Stephen Dinan
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051103-115741-1048r.htm

House Republicans are looking closely at ending birthright citizenship and building a barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border as they search for solutions to illegal immigration.
A task force of party leaders and members active on immigration has met since the summer to try to figure out where consensus exists, and several participants said those two ideas have floated to the top of the list of possibilities to be included either in an immigration-enforcement bill later this year or in a later comprehensive immigration overhaul.
"There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are the children of folks who come into this country illegally," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, who is participating in the "unity dinners," the group of Republicans trying to find consensus on immigration.
Birthright citizenship, or what critics call "anchor babies," means that any child born on U.S. soil is granted citizenship, with exceptions for foreign diplomats. That attracts illegal aliens, who have children in the United States; those children later can sponsor their parents for legal immigration.
Most lawmakers had avoided the issue, fearing that change would require a constitutional amendment -- the 14th Amendment reads in part: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
But several Republicans said recent studies suggest otherwise.
"There's been recent scholarship that says we can do it by statute, and we ought to try," said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, who usually finds himself on the opposite side of immigration issues from Mr. Tancredo.
"How in the world can you explain that's a good policy to have? It simply doesn't promote respect for the rule of law," Mr. Flake said.
Several lawmakers said the U.S. and Mexico are the only major Western countries to have birthright citizenship. Most European countries have moved away from birthright citizenship in recent decades.
"I am as surprised as anyone that this thing has got legs," Mr. Tancredo said, adding that he views it as a major step forward for the immigration debate. "This is the issue that motivated me to deal with immigration."
While some members said it could be part of an immigration bill later this year, Rep. Dan Lungren, California Republican, said it will take longer to drum up public support for such a major change, though he backs ending the policy.
"Some of us believe we have depreciated the value of citizenship," he said.
Meanwhile, the idea of a fence or other barrier also is gaining support.
At this week's "unity dinner," House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, said he supports a barrier system of fences in some places and electronic surveillance or vehicle barriers in others, one participant said.
Mr. Hastert's spokesman said the speaker would not talk about the private meetings.
Border barriers received a big boost yesterday when Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, announced a broad enforcement bill with a fence as its centerpiece.
"The fence works," Mr. Hunter said. He led the fight earlier in this Congress to complete a 14-mile section of fence near San Diego, and he and other members said the success there gives the idea momentum.
"Those who say the fence won't work, frankly, don't have experience with fences," said Rep. Geoff Davis, a Kentucky Republican who is supporting Mr. Hunter's bill.
But Mr. Flake and fellow Arizona Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe, who both support legalizing illegal aliens and raising legal immigration levels by 400,000 per year, said a fence would not work.
Mr. Flake said it would not affect those illegal aliens -- about half of the total immigrant population -- who came to the United States on legal temporary visas and have overstayed. He also said he does not want it to sap energy from a comprehensive solution.
"My fear is people will say let's build a fence and put off any guest-worker, border enforcement, interior enforcement for years," he said.
Rep. John Shadegg, the Arizona Republican who runs the dinners, said they are reaching some areas of consensus, though he would not specify and said committee chairmen would have to write the eventual bill.
But he said the effort has convinced the White House to do more to enforce the borders -- something he said was reflected both in President Bush's remarks upon signing the homeland security spending bill and in congressional testimony by the Homeland Security secretary.
Mr. Shadegg said the group has talked about border barriers and electronic surveillance, and said he is a fan of using unmanned aerial vehicles to patrol the border, particularly because they can track criminal behavior, which is crucial in establishing a chain of evidence to convict drug or alien smugglers.
 
I agree, just posturing, much like the proposed border fence. They'll tease us until after the election, then go back to pandering to the big corps and hispanic vote.
Biker
 
there is a body of law standing for the proposition that the language "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can be interpreted to mean "here legally" -- meaning Congress would just pass a statute to that effect, not an amendment.
 
Thats insane. Its the feds job to keep our borders secure. Their inability to accomplish this task is NOT a good enough reason to strip citizenship from people who are born here. We have a LONG and important history of judging people as individuals regardless of their parentage. This sounds like something that would fly in the England that we parted ties with a long time ago.
 
Sorry for being a curmudgeon, but...

How will this change anything? There are already millions of non-citizens here illegally. That number will just jump astronomically if this passes. That's it.

Doesn't anybody think that illegals already get perks for which being a citizen may be required? Think less illegals will be voting/driving/welfare/schooling/etc because of this?

I just don't see this making a difference. Now enforcing the border so very, very few get in illegally, is a completely different matter.
 
Logical Falicies

there is a body of law standing for the proposition that the language "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can be interpreted to mean "here legally"
What body of law? I ask honestly, being only an average citizen that does not read much law (other than that spouted on Internet bulletin boards).

That conclusion (above), makes absolutely no sense, because, if you are in this country, illegal or not, you ARE "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

But several Republicans said recent studies suggest otherwise.
"There's been recent scholarship that says we can do it by statute, and we ought to try,"
Yes, lets set more precedent for re-writing the constitution without actually re-writing it. And never for the better.
 
Border city perspective

True enough -- I don't think this will stop the illegal flow of people across the border.

However, there is no reason we should grant citizenship to those who are born to parents who are here illegally. There is no reason to give them entitlements (California's costs per illegal are enormous, and the state is in financial trouble as it is, along with many cities and counties). There is no reason to give them the right to vote, or to sponsor anyone, either.

My parents immigrated here legally, then became citizens. I welcome anyone who wants to do that.

I don't, however, think we are obligated to reward those who break our laws, while displacing those who wish to obey them. And the fact that these people can sponsor immigrants means that other people, who humbly wait and go through the legal process of immigrating to the US, are pushed back in line, perhaps forever.

This is wrong.
 
Desertdog said:
"House Republicans are looking closely at ending birthright citizenship and building a barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border..."

I'm against the ending of the birthright citizenship law, but very much for building a barrier! We should have built one long ago!

Any nation that can construct ships, planes, trains, and urban infrastructure as this nation can build a fence on our border... We need such a barrier....

In lieu of such a barrier now we should immediately install a minefield along our southern and northern border with lots of signage. Let illegal aliens know that the free run is over.
 
How do you not realize that walls, minefields, sniper towers, etc. will eventually be turned against U.S. citizens, whether intentionally or accidentally?

~G. Fink :banghead:
 
Gordon Fink said:
How do you not realize that walls, minefields, sniper towers, etc. will eventually be turned against U.S. citizens, whether intentionally or accidentally?

Due caution would be exercised. Letting terrorists march right into our country is reckless endangerment. The prior freedoms we exericised with our borders cannot be maintained. How many 09/11/01s will it take to show that our borders must be closed and our nation must be changed to become more security consciousness?

There are many 3rd World nations with better border control than the United States!
 
What body of law? I ask honestly, being only an average citizen that does not read much law (other than that spouted on Internet bulletin boards).

That conclusion (above), makes absolutely no sense, because, if you are in this country, illegal or not, you ARE "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Come to think of it it did use to be that just being here didn't make someone an American citizen. Your parents had to be citizens as well.

-Bill
 
whm1974 said:
Come to think of it it did use to be that just being here didn't make someone an American citizen. Your parents had to be citizens as well.

This would be the same point in history that women were not considered citizens.
 
In 20 years our "Latino travelers" (as Morris Dees calls them) will be using a variant on Kelo to seize property at will from what used to be called American citizens. All it takes is enough warm bodies who can waddle to the voting booth. Let's repeal Prop. XIII in California and give the houses to those families that need them most, right?

That's if bigger upheavals don't happen first, which I think is a very fair bet.

This whole situation is the anteroom to social chaos.
 
Build a fence? Sure. But end citizenship for people born here? That's outrageous! Are we going to cross check the citizenship status of the mother and father at the hospital? What if the child is born in a house? Do they have to prove their parents were good Americans with Zee Proper Papers? I've got a scratchy xerox of my great grandfather's citizenship papers, but nothing for my great grandmother. I certainly have no legally enforceable documents and no real proof beyond an easily faked 100 year old document and the word of my own parents. Can my citizenship be repealed?

The GOP has gone INSANE. This is no solution to the problem.
 
Cosmoline said:
Build a fence? Sure. But end citizenship for people born here? That's outrageous! Are we going to cross check the citizenship status of the mother and father at the hospital? What if the child is born in a house? Do they have to prove their parents were good Americans with Zee Proper Papers?

The GOP has gone INSANE.

Explain why anchor babies should be granted citizenship simply because mama snuck across the Rio Grande at 8+ months pregnant.
 
spartacus2002 said:
Explain why anchor babies should be granted citizenship simply because mama snuck across the Rio Grande at 8+ months pregnant.


Because, like me THEY WERE BORN HERE. If you don't want people coming into the US, build a DMZ on the border. It works very well in Korea.

I just ran into a man the other day who was born of a young Finnish woman who just happened to be in the US at the time. She put him up for adoption and had to go back home. Now would you claim this man's citizenship is bogus?
 
But.........but I thought the GOP did not care about illegal immigration? :confused:

:)
 
When the left violates the Constitution with a bad law, everyone here is quick to condemn them.

When the right violates the Constitution with a bad law, people turn a blind eye and justify it with "legal scholarship".

My view of the Constitution is very simplistic. If the Constitution says something, then I think that is what the law should be. The Constitution does not need to be de-coded by legal scholars.

The 14th Amendment says: "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 where in the 14th Amendment is the parents legal status mentioned. It has nothing to do with it. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is intended to apply to the person born here, not their parents. Using that as a way to justify changing the law is patently absurd. Being born to illegal immigrant parents is not a crime.

I would support eliminating birthright citizenship, but it should require no less than a Constitutional amendment to eliminate. Anything short of this would be Un-Constitutional.

But, I am just a simple man interpretting a simple set of laws. Leave it to the politicians to corrupt the law to their own ends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top