H.R. 1940: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007

[rpanic]

I know its wishful thinking but I hope H.R. 1940: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 makes it through at least that would take out one big loop hole the illegals use, but I am sure the democrats will nuke it.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1940

 

[EagleKeeper]

It would remove the ability of the anchor baby as an excuse.

That is only minimal reason for the problems though.
The economic incentive is the biggy.

 

[BoomerD]

"/19/2007--Introduced.
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces."

That'd be a great start...however, IMO, they need to make it retroactive...say 50 years.

 

[herkulease]

Waiting till someone calls this racist and/or comments on how there shouldn't be borders.

 

[babylon5]

Race card wavers would have you believe no other countries require parents have residency in order to give child citizenship. Making excuses is all they are good at.

 

[1prophet]

Someone is going to have to change this first.


Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. 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 State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Someone is going to have to change this first.


Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1.< 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 State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That would overrule the House Bill.

What is could do is force momentum to have the ammendment modified to follow the lines of the House bill.

Ammendments can be repealed, they should also be able to be modified.

 

[senseamp]

Didn't Republicans swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? They know this bill is Unconstitutional, yet they are pushing it. If they want to amend the Constitution, that would be more in line with their oath.

 

[ProfJohn]

If that is a direct quote of the amendment then congress could pass a law defining what ?and subject to the jurisdiction thereof? means.

It would then be up to the courts to decide. The ?and subject? part is all that matters and it would leave some wiggle room for the courts to decide this case. Should be interesting to see what happens.

No matter what this is a great political move since it forces everyone to stand on one side or the other. Come election time next year anyone who voted against this will certainly hear about it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Didn't Republicans swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? They know this bill is Unconstitutional, yet they are pushing it. If they want to amend the Constitution, that would be more in line with their oath.

Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.

Cuts both ways?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Didn't Republicans swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? They know this bill is Unconstitutional, yet they are pushing it. If they want to amend the Constitution, that would be more in line with their oath.

I'm not sure it is all that clearly unconstitutional. AFAIK, the SCOTUS hasn't yet taken up the issue, this would likely force them to rule on it.

I thought some in Texas have raised the question of (as PJ points out) the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and what it means exactly.

But, yes, you are correct that a Constitutional Amendment would be preferable.

Fern

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.
Cuts both ways?

I should not be surprised at your inability to link the 16th Amendment with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (?The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .?). "Reasoned thought" has never been one of your strengths. However much I may disagree with the programs promoted as "general welfare", I fail to see how they are patently unconstitutional.

 

[Jhhnn]

From PJ-

Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.

Nice attempted diversion- classic OT troll...

And I love the dancing around the point of the 14th amendment... if persons born in the US aren't subject to its jurisdiction, then how could they be deported?

Anybody who's in the country is subject to its "jurisdiction", with the rule of law being supreme...

Better off to attempt to redefine "born in the United States"- you might have more luck...

It's just a new pander point- first the fundies and the raving anti-tax crowd, now the xenophobes and those who blame immigrants for economic woes...

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Didn't Republicans swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? They know this bill is Unconstitutional, yet they are pushing it. If they want to amend the Constitution, that would be more in line with their oath.

Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.

Cuts both ways?

Article I, section 8
16th Amendment

Read them both before spouting nonsense.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: rpanic
I know its wishful thinking but I hope H.R. 1940: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 makes it through at least that would take out one big loop hole the illegals use, but I am sure the democrats will nuke it.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1940

It wont make it out of committee.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From PJ-

Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.

Nice attempted diversion- classic OT troll...

And I love the dancing around the point of the 14th amendment... if persons born in the US aren't subject to its jurisdiction, then how could they be deported?

Anybody who's in the country is subject to its "jurisdiction", with the rule of law being supreme...

Better off to attempt to redefine "born in the United States"- you might have more luck...

It's just a new pander point- first the fundies and the raving anti-tax crowd, now the xenophobes and those who blame immigrants for economic woes...

It is not the immigrants, it is the illegal/undocumented people that are the issue.
The economic incentative needs to be removed and the laws enforced quickly.
Local governments that refuse to support/enforce Federal laws should have some Federal financial penalties in form of pulled funding/grants.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From PJ-

Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.

Nice attempted diversion- classic OT troll...

And I love the dancing around the point of the 14th amendment... if persons born in the US aren't subject to its jurisdiction, then how could they be deported?

Anybody who's in the country is subject to its "jurisdiction", with the rule of law being supreme...

Better off to attempt to redefine "born in the United States"- you might have more luck...

It's just a new pander point- first the fundies and the raving anti-tax crowd, now the xenophobes and those who blame immigrants for economic woes...

It is not the immigrants, it is the illegal/undocumented people that are the issue.
The economic incentative needs to be removed and the laws enforced quickly.
Local governments that refuse to support/enforce Federal laws should have some Federal financial penalties in form of pulled funding/grants.

See the real problem with that statement is, local governments do not have the authority or jursidication to enforce federal laws. Nor can they create their own ordinances, because immigration laws are strictly a federal matter. Immigration is solely up to the federal government to enforce. The federal government chooses not to.

Pay attention to the news, this issue has been ruled on in courts recently.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.
Cuts both ways?

I should not be surprised at your inability to link the 16th Amendment with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (?The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .?). "Reasoned thought" has never been one of your strengths. However much I may disagree with the programs promoted as "general welfare", I fail to see how they are patently unconstitutional.

We are getting off topic here so I?ll just give one response to this issue?

When the Constitution was written the idea of ?Welfare? as we know it did NOT exist. Therefore there is no way in hell that the ?general welfare? clause meant that congress could create welfare programs.

The more proper use of the term ?general welfare? would be ?the state of doing well especially in respect to happiness, well-being or prosperity.?

To that I shall add the following quotes, all of which back up the basic idea that the founders did not intend for government to take money from one person and GIVE it to another.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." -- Thomas Jefferson

"[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction." -- James Madison

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.-- Benjamin Franklin

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."-- Thomas Jefferson

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.
Cuts both ways?

I should not be surprised at your inability to link the 16th Amendment with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (?The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .?). "Reasoned thought" has never been one of your strengths. However much I may disagree with the programs promoted as "general welfare", I fail to see how they are patently unconstitutional.

We are getting off topic here so I?ll just give one response to this issue?

When the Constitution was written the idea of ?Welfare? as we know it did NOT exist. Therefore there is no way in hell that the ?general welfare? clause meant that congress could create welfare programs.

The more proper use of the term ?general welfare? would be ?the state of doing well especially in respect to happiness, well-being or prosperity.?

To that I shall add the following quotes, all of which back up the basic idea that the founders did not intend for government to take money from one person and GIVE it to another.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." -- Thomas Jefferson

"[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction." -- James Madison

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.-- Benjamin Franklin

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."-- Thomas Jefferson

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison

Yes but there is legal precedent and constitutional interpertation that makes all those above qoutes meaningless. This is not the 1700/1800s.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
And I love the dancing around the point of the 14th amendment... if persons born in the US aren't subject to its jurisdiction, then how could they be deported?

Anybody who's in the country is subject to its "jurisdiction", with the rule of law being supreme...

Better off to attempt to redefine "born in the United States"- you might have more luck...

It's just a new pander point- first the fundies and the raving anti-tax crowd, now the xenophobes and those who blame immigrants for economic woes...

Read the Constitution and find me the ?right to privacy?

It?s not there. Yet the courts used that right in order to over turn anti-abortion laws in the Roe V. Wade decisions.
The courts wanted the ruling to go one way so they ?created? a right in order to justify their ruling.

The same thing could happen in this case, although they don?t have to ?create? anything.
They could easily state that the phrase ?and subject to the jurisdiction thereof? means that only people legally in the country are subject to its jurisdiction in determining citizenship.

Is there any other country in the world that allows the children of non-citizens to become citizens based solely on their place of birth?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Yes but there is legal precedent and constitutional interpertation that makes all those above qoutes meaningless. This is not the 1700/1800s.

Just as their could be constitutional interpretation that says this law is allowable, that is my point.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From PJ-

Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.

Nice attempted diversion- classic OT troll...

And I love the dancing around the point of the 14th amendment... if persons born in the US aren't subject to its jurisdiction, then how could they be deported?

Anybody who's in the country is subject to its "jurisdiction", with the rule of law being supreme...

Better off to attempt to redefine "born in the United States"- you might have more luck...

It's just a new pander point- first the fundies and the raving anti-tax crowd, now the xenophobes and those who blame immigrants for economic woes...

By your logic, the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would be completely redundant, and therefore unnecessary. The Constitution is not written that way.

There may be jurisdictional overlap in that it's quite possible the child, born of two illegal immigrants who happen to be Mexican, may be a Mexican citizen under Mexican law by virtue of that child's parents citizenship status. In such cases, which country's rules prevail?

The clause may refer to foreign diplomats in the USA. They are not subject to US jurisdiction. Perhaps the clause was intended to recognize that foreign diplomats working in the USA may have children while here, and they did not want their children to US citizens.

Fern

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Didn't Republicans swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? They know this bill is Unconstitutional, yet they are pushing it. If they want to amend the Constitution, that would be more in line with their oath.

Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.

Cuts both ways?

Completely different. Congress is tasked with collecting taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare. So the Constitution does give Congress those rights that you question. However, the Constitution is very explicit that anyone born in the US is a citizen. So there is a direct a clear assault on the Constitution in this law.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
And I love the dancing around the point of the 14th amendment... if persons born in the US aren't subject to its jurisdiction, then how could they be deported?

Anybody who's in the country is subject to its "jurisdiction", with the rule of law being supreme...

Better off to attempt to redefine "born in the United States"- you might have more luck...

It's just a new pander point- first the fundies and the raving anti-tax crowd, now the xenophobes and those who blame immigrants for economic woes...

Read the Constitution and find me the ?right to privacy?

It?s not there. Yet the courts used that right in order to over turn anti-abortion laws in the Roe V. Wade decisions.
The courts wanted the ruling to go one way so they ?created? a right in order to justify their ruling.

The same thing could happen in this case, although they don?t have to ?create? anything.
They could easily state that the phrase ?and subject to the jurisdiction thereof? means that only people legally in the country are subject to its jurisdiction in determining citizenship.

Is there any other country in the world that allows the children of non-citizens to become citizens based solely on their place of birth?

The only way to get around the ?and subject to the jurisdiction thereof? is to give the person diplomatic immunity or the equvilant.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From PJ-

Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.

Nice attempted diversion- classic OT troll...

And I love the dancing around the point of the 14th amendment... if persons born in the US aren't subject to its jurisdiction, then how could they be deported?

Anybody who's in the country is subject to its "jurisdiction", with the rule of law being supreme...

Better off to attempt to redefine "born in the United States"- you might have more luck...

It's just a new pander point- first the fundies and the raving anti-tax crowd, now the xenophobes and those who blame immigrants for economic woes...

It is not the immigrants, it is the illegal/undocumented people that are the issue.
The economic incentative needs to be removed and the laws enforced quickly.
Local governments that refuse to support/enforce Federal laws should have some Federal financial penalties in form of pulled funding/grants.

See the real problem with that statement is, local governments do not have the authority or jursidication to enforce federal laws. Nor can they create their own ordinances, because immigration laws are strictly a federal matter. Immigration is solely up to the federal government to enforce. The federal government chooses not to.

Pay attention to the news, this issue has been ruled on in courts recently.

correct in the legal aspect.

However, the Feds can use the $$ issue as a carrot.

Congress can set laws to assist in allowing the locals to enforce the rules.

But it requires political will power - and we all know that there is no such thing in this regard within the halls of Congress