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.
“TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED. In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”
Some crazy Republican law? Nope, just something Harry Reid tried to pass twenty years ago. According to his own standards, this should be grounds to lose the entire hispanic vote. Right? Or does that only apply to Republicans?
Some crazy Republican law? Nope, just something Harry Reid tried to pass twenty years ago. According to his own standards, this should be grounds to lose the entire hispanic vote. Right? Or does that only apply to Republicans?
Some crazy Republican law? Nope, just something Harry Reid tried to pass twenty years ago. According to his own standards, this should be grounds to lose the entire hispanic vote. Right? Or does that only apply to Republicans?
Died in committee because it was unconstitutional probably.
Either way, it was a completely different immigration problem in 1993, than it is today. Its far worse today.
The issue with "anchor babies" even then was stupid. They account for 1% of illegal immigration. I think we should worry about the bigger pie, before this.
At any rate, repealing the 14th amendment is stupid, and its political football, with no chance of ever happening.
Died in committee because it was unconstitutional probably.
Either way, it was a completely different immigration problem in 1993, than it is today. Its far worse today.
The issue with "anchor babies" even then was stupid. They account for 1% of illegal immigration. I think we should worry about the bigger pie, before this.
At any rate, repealing the 14th amendment is stupid, and its political football, with no chance of ever happening.
Repealing the 14th Amendment is not necessary. It just needs to be "clarified" since it is being used in a way it was never meant to be used. "Illegals" were never intended to be covered by this amendment. Only slaves...note this was passed right after the Civil War. It even took a special "clarification" (can't remember what they call it) to cover the Indians on the reservations.
I'm curious. Has Harry Reid ever expressed a position that could actually be described as " pro-anchor baby?"
I ask honestly because, since he's been a pretty consistent supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, this hardly seems to contradict any position I've ever heard him take?
So... how exactly is this an example of "He was for it before he was against it?"
Repealing the 14th Amendment is not necessary. It just needs to be "clarified" since it is being used in a way it was never meant to be used. "Illegals" were never intended to be covered by this amendment. Only slaves...note this was passed right after the Civil War. It even took a special "clarification" (can't remember what they call it) to cover the Indians on the reservations.
If it was meant to cover only slaves, why does it say "All persons?"
Repealing the 14th Amendment is not necessary. It just needs to be "clarified" since it is being used in a way it was never meant to be used. "Illegals" were never intended to be covered by this amendment. Only slaves...note this was passed right after the Civil War. It even took a special "clarification" (can't remember what they call it) to cover the Indians on the reservations.
Laws have been passed to clarify things before, and the courts strike them down because the wording is unconstitutional to the amendment or clause they are trying to "clarify".
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.
