The argument for keeping "birthright citizenship"?? (visas, legal, American)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 19,429,775 times
Reputation: 4611
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
You missed the point. Yes I am arguing for an amendment to the Constitution to change birthright citizenship and I am contacting our congressmen about it but the pro-illegals think it wrong to change it even though amendments to the Constitution have been made before. Yet they have no problem arguing to change our immigration laws. In otherwords they adhere to a double standard.
Actually, an amendment wouldn't even be required. All that needs to be done is for the Supreme Court to read the 14th thoroughly and they will realize that birthright citizenship was never intended for babies of illegal alien parents and deny it from then on.
Quote:
pro-illegals think it wrong to change it even though amendments to the Constitution have been made before. Yet they have no problem arguing to change our immigration laws. In otherwords they adhere to a double standard.
That's something that burns my a*s. Who do they think they are??
They could even modify this amendment so that it's clear that illegals coming here to give birth won't be given a pass. The anchor baby should not be given welfare handouts of any kind since the parents are here illegally. The hospital stay should not be free, the parents should be given a hospital bill and be informed that outstanding debts can bar them from legal immigration. The parents could still be deported and should be deported. And no anchor baby can ever sponsor his family for immigration.
The argument for keeping "birthright citizenship"?
The simple and factual answer is that birthright citizenship is to date Constitutional.
there is no other "argument" needed.
That's not an argument for keeping it. It's a reason why illegals can get away with it now.
It's Constitutional because of a poorly worded AMENDMENT to the Constitution.
It can be made UNConstitutional by correcting the wording of that Amendment.
Can you make an argument for leaving the Amendment as is, and allowing this to continue?
The U.S. needs to stop granting automatic citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. This is a big draw for illegal aliens to enter the country illegally and abuse the system.
"The 14th Amendment, passed to guarantee the citizenship of freed slaves, grants citizenship to anyone born here and "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. HR 1940 acknowledges the right of birthright citizenship established by the 14th amendment to the Constitution, but says a person born in the United States is considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States only if one of the parents is a citizen, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or an alien performing active service in the armed forces."
There are wello over 300,000 additional U.S. citizens each year born from illegal alien mothers that are being taught to have no allegiance to America. These children will not be counted as part of the overall immigration numbers.
To continue birthright citizenship is an assult against the sovereignty of our nation and Constitution. It is a another form of illegal alien invasions in our country. The are like a crook that got away with his crimes.
Last edited by Obey_The_Laws; 10-10-2010 at 05:19 PM..
The argument for keeping "birthright citizenship"?
The simple and factual answer is that birthright citizenship is to date Constitutional.
there is no other "argument" needed.
This isn't an autocracy. In a democratic society, laws are not self-justifying. They are subject to ongoing scrutiny to determine if they serve a desirable public policy goal, and if they don't they need to be changed.
This isn't an autocracy. In a democratic society, laws are not self-justifying. They are subject to ongoing scrutiny to determine if they serve a desirable public policy goal, and if they don't they need to be changed.
Thats why I used the term "to-date". My statement does not convey permanency.
You are right, we should stop birthright citizenship. America would have been a much better place had Michelle Malkin been forced to move back to the Philippines.
You are right, we should stop birthright citizenship. America would have been a much better place had Michelle Malkin been forced to move back to the Philippines.
Michelle Malkin is not an anchor baby.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
