Is this a good idea? The illegal aliens are alreay threatening us.?
Question by Joel W: Is this a good idea? The illegal aliens are alreay threatening us.?
Arizona’s next Immigration Debate: babies born in the U.S.
The effort in Arizona, spearheaded by longtime anti-illegal immigration crusader and incoming state Senate President Russell Pearce, is remarkable for two reasons. First, it moves the focus of the immigration debate from those who are in the country illegally to their children, who currently become American citizens if they are born in the United States. Second, Arizona will not be alone in questioning the principle of “birthright citizenship,” because lawmakers in at least a dozen more states also have agreed to push similar legislation.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/19/3268814/arizonas-next-immigration-debate.html#ixzz18by6SnPP
===============================================
Is this a good idea? The illegal aliens are suggesting they will burn the cities of this country.
What do you think? Answer below!
8 Responses to Is this a good idea? The illegal aliens are alreay threatening us.?
Leave a Reply
Go for it AZ be a leader not a follower.They will burn nothing or then they better run back to Mexico as they will have the fury of the entire USA and the outraged citizens on there heels.
45 auto
April 26, 2014 at 5:48 am
Well now,for once I have to agree with something written in Sac Bee.Have to agree with the Idea of taking away incentive for illegals coming here to have babies as a way to stay in U.S.Know a lot of good people who came here the right way,earning their way to citizenship.Tired of politicians selling us out for votes.They should be telling illegals to stay home and fix their own country so it would be a good place to raise their kids.
Am sure Sac Bee will have 5 articles refuting this particular piece.
Gaijin
April 26, 2014 at 6:07 am
If other illegals hadn’t spoiled this for everyone by taking advantage of this, then there’s a chance it would never be questioned. But now that people are given an inch and taking a mile, somethings got to be done.
Britney M
April 26, 2014 at 7:07 am
I say bring it to the Supreme Court before Obama stacks it with too many liberals. We still have the edge
Typical California Liberal
April 26, 2014 at 7:54 am
It is unconstitutional to try to take away birthright citizenship to anyone even is the newborn is son or daughter of illegal parents.
JC Gå†ї†o & Ťö†ó 【Ч】 〖§√〗
April 26, 2014 at 8:37 am
It is a good idea, and it’s about time!
Bit of Honey
April 26, 2014 at 9:05 am
I pray that the birthright citizenship is revoked. I can only hope that the illegal aliens will try something incredibly stupid such as attempting to burn the cities of this country. That will be the last nail in their coffin. I can guarantee they will be rounded up & deported along with our border being heavily secured, so bring it on.
Terresa
April 26, 2014 at 9:17 am
There appear to be some healthy changes in store for America with the shift away from extreme liberal policies and progressive attempts to rush the United States headlong into socialism and a New World Order. Our new Congressional leadership is promising long overdue changes which include a constitutional test for any legislation brought to the floor of the House. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the head of the House Rules Working Group, said the GOP transition team will recommend the adoption of a rule requiring lawmakers to provide constitutional authority for every bill.
GOP leaders sent out a memo Thursday providing guidance to members of the 112th Congress on how to deal with the new requirement, and suggest “resources they can go to to assist,” said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the transition team. “The Constitution will suddenly become en vogue again” in the next House, Bishop said.
The serious nature and determination of the 112th Congress to return to rule of law policies and strict adherence to the Constitution might serve to provide investors with an old-fashioned opportunity in the nation’s Capitol for a business sure to spike during the new year. Conservatives wishing to profit in the most traditional of ways undoubtedly would do well to invest in D.C. area laundry and dry cleaning businesses, or one of Kimberly-Clark’s more discreet Divisions, as the spike in representatives on the left rush for a change of pants over the forced return to what our Founders intended through governing documents and carefully crafted legislation on record. Remember the Constitution? Fully one half of our government has ignored it or chosen to willfully disregard it for decades now, while applying heavy-handed policies of governance and law that are creative, at best, and self-serving to liberal special interests often at the expense of our American citizenry.
Specifically with regard to the 14th Amendment, that could signify a move toward restoration of the original intent for the Citizenship Clause, which has been overlooked for much of the 20th century. One of the Amendment’s principal authors, Michigan Senator Jacob Howard was clear about the intent and meaning of the wording selected by the Joint Committee on Reconstruction for how their approach should answer the critical citizenship questions which lingered for half a century.
In May of 1866, Senator Howard offered the following words in explanation before the Senate Chamber.
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
I’ll include links to a page from the Congressional Globe where the Senator’s words can be found near the bottom of the middle column and to extensive research on the 14th Amendment from Constitutional scholar P.A. Madison. And further support can be found through links provided in the Constitutional Accountability Center’s concise presentation of critical elements framing the debate over citizenship and the inexplicable return to English common law as a basis for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wong Kim Ark in 1898, ahead of consideration of the Amendment’s unmistakable original meaning or the highest Court’s rulings for several decades.
How did we get to the point where legislating from the bench could so easily ignore words such as Senator Howard’s, while defining the Committee’s intention for the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” when he said “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,…” Since citizenship by birth, according to English common law, has morphed into the deleterious anchor baby issue about to take our country to the bottom of the sea, the issue posed in your question and discussion in the link is probably different from what many citizens have been led to believe.
A return to the Constitution’s first and only words defining this critical citizenship issue is what is needed, rather than the favored liberal rewrite of the authors’ intent. Most who bother to do the research understand that Senator Howard’s words are unmistakable and should not have been replaced by Justice Gray’s rambling majority opinion from WKA that did everything it could to avoid the Amendment and decades of United States case law that preceded the 1898 decision that’s been misapplied and misinterpreted to the detriment of our populace for far too long.
Rocky Mountain Patriot
April 26, 2014 at 10:00 am