 |
|
|

04-19-2011, 10:38 AM
|
|
|
|
8,267 posts, read 1,991,342 times
Reputation: 1766
|
|
61% Oppose U.S. Citizenship for Anchor Babies
61% Oppose U.S. Citizenship for Anchor Babies
Quote:
|
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 61% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that a child born in the United States to a woman who is here illegally should not automatically become a U.S. citizen. That’s up slightly from last August but is the highest level of support for a change in the existing law found in five years of Rasmussen Reports surveying.
|
Quote:
|
Twenty-eight percent (28%) disagree and feel that children born to illegal immigrants in this country should automatically become American citizens as is currently the practice
|
Quote:
|
Eighty-four percent (84%) of voters believe that before anyone receives local, state or federal government services, they should be required to prove they are legally allowed to be in the United States. Only nine percent (9%) oppose such a requirement
|
Quote:
|
Most voters continue to feel that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration
|
Quote:
|
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose automatic U.S. citizenship for children born in this country to illegal immigrants. Democrats are evenly divided on the question.
|
Quote:
|
75% of Democrats are concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal aliens will violate the civil rights of some U.S. citizens, a view shared by just 39% of Republicans. Unaffiliated voters are narrowly divided on the question.
|
|
|

04-19-2011, 10:44 AM
|
|
Status:
"Dislike Obama? Well, then you're a racist."
(set 23 days ago)
|
|
Location: Metro West- Boston, MA
7,604 posts, read 1,896,754 times
Reputation: 2755
|
|
|
|
|

04-19-2011, 10:48 AM
|
|
|
|
6,486 posts, read 2,180,246 times
Reputation: 1227
|
|
|
I wonder if the libs that whine about how 60% of Americans want same-gender marriage are going to get on this thread and support changing the constitution because of 61% here.
|
|

04-19-2011, 10:51 AM
|
|
|
|
2,296 posts, read 676,913 times
Reputation: 1269
|
|
|
Include me in that 61%. I actually believe that number is low.
|
|

04-19-2011, 10:54 AM
|
|
|
|
2,872 posts, read 3,434,773 times
Reputation: 1591
|
|
|
If the percentages are that high, then why aren't leading politicians seriously pushing for a constitutional amendment? Talk is cheap, but this issue is going nowhere in D.C., with or without a Republican majority in the House.
|
|

04-19-2011, 11:16 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Brooklyn
40,062 posts, read 14,920,346 times
Reputation: 9898
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by domino
If the percentages are that high, then why aren't leading politicians seriously pushing for a constitutional amendment? Talk is cheap, but this issue is going nowhere in D.C., with or without a Republican majority in the House.
|
Because politicians have a natural aversion to any issue that sounds like it could come within five miles of "controversial." If you're looking for people with principle, you must look elsewhere.
On the other hand, make it crystal clear to your friendly local Congressman that he hasn't got a chance in hell of being re-elected, and all of a sudden he'll flood your mailbox with flyers proclaiming his full support for whatever it is you happen to believe in.
|
|

04-19-2011, 11:17 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
13,161 posts, read 7,536,810 times
Reputation: 4826
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by domino
If the percentages are that high, then why aren't leading politicians seriously pushing for a constitutional amendment? Talk is cheap, but this issue is going nowhere in D.C., with or without a Republican majority in the House.
|
They have done precisely that.
Quote:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to United States citizenship.Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification by the Congress:
Article --
A person born in the United States shall not be a citizen of the United States unless--(1) one parent of the person is a citizen of the United States;
(2) one parent of the person is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States who resides in the United States;
(3) one parent of the person is an alien performing active service in the Armed Forces of the United States; or
(4) the person is naturalized in accordance with the laws of the United States.
Source: S.J.Res 2, Introduced 01/25/2011 by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
|
However, it should be noted that this proposed amendment to the US Constitution has been proposed in every session of Congress since the 1990s and it has never yet reached the floor for a vote. Thus far, Sen. Rand Paul is its only cosponsor. I would not hold my breath hoping this bill will ever see the light of day. It is sitting in the Committee on the Judiciary, and that is where it will die - until the next session of Congress.
|
|

04-19-2011, 11:24 AM
|
|
|
|
1,777 posts, read 416,947 times
Reputation: 584
|
|
|
Wow, you could read that resolution as saying that if both parents are citizens of the United States, then the person born in the United States is not a citizen.
If you're not a citizen unless one parent is a citizen, that would seem to imply that you're not a citizen if two parents are citizens.
As for the proposed Amendment, I have a hard time getting too worked up with reinterpreting "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude people in the US illegally. It would be a revision of centuries of precedent that limits that language to children of invading armies or diplomats, but I think you could plausibly say that people here illegally are only subject to deportation, and no other jurisdiction of the US, unless they violate some other criminal law.
|
|

04-19-2011, 11:35 AM
|
|
|
|
6,106 posts, read 2,789,296 times
Reputation: 4389
|
|
|
I'm opposed to citizenship for anchor babies, too.
Of course, it's easy for me to take that position because I know that there is no such thing as an anchor baby. It would be nice if the other posters here would get that straight.
|
|

04-19-2011, 11:39 AM
|
|
|
|
4,434 posts, read 1,714,973 times
Reputation: 1330
|
|
|
I don't know which of Obama's carnival employees is responsible for listening to the people on this one.
Maybe Eric Holder.
But, I can assure you that whoever it is .... they don't give a damn what the American people think.
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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.
|
|
Similar Threads
-
The End Of Having Anchor Babies Getting Citizenship Is Near: Bills Sail Through Arizona's Legislative Senate Panel, Illegal Immigration, 73 replies
-
Original intent of 14th Amendment vs. Misinterpretation re Illegals and Citizenship for Anchor Babies, Illegal Immigration, 16 replies
-
Anchor Babies, Illegal Immigration, 47 replies
-
Rasmussen: 61% oppose citizenship for anchor babies, Illegal Immigration, 3 replies
-
Lawmakers in 14 States Craft Bill to Deny Citizenship to 'Anchor Babies', Illegal Immigration, 52 replies
-
Anchor babies away: Enormous Cost of Jackpot Babies To Taxpayers, Illegal Immigration, 101 replies
|