Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Obama 2012

New Arizona bill would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants

51 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Of course, Kavenagh is right.

If the SCTOUS got ahold of this and ruled on it appropriately (i/e looking at 'original intent' as they are supposed to) then it would survive any and all challenges.

The authors/presenter of the 14th amendment expressly stated that this would not include children born to foreigners. Many people refuse to look at the facts though.

-----

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/arizona.immigration.children/index.html?hpt=Sbin

(CNN) -- A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.

The bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation's toughest immigration law.

John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.

Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status.

Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative, strongly opposes the bill.

"Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of the U.S. Constitution," she said.

"While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal government," said Sinema. "Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona."

Share your thoughts on immigration

Arizona Republicans are expected to introduce the legislation this fall.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: United Kingdom
Timeline

(CNN) -- A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.

That's just dumb.

Let's pretend they were never born?

What are these children supposed to do? Even if they go back to Mexico, they'll need a birth certificate to prove who they are.


biden_pinhead.jpgspace.gifrolling-stones-american-flag-tongue.jpgspace.gifinside-geico.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

That's just dumb.

Let's pretend they were never born?

What are these children supposed to do? Even if they go back to Mexico, they'll need a birth certificate to prove who they are.

Birth certificates are a state function that the Federal Government has nothing to do with. Technically a state can deny issuing a certificate to whomever they want...


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

That's just dumb.

Let's pretend they were never born?

What are these children supposed to do? Even if they go back to Mexico, they'll need a birth certificate to prove who they are.

its dumb. so are the rest of arizona's new immigration laws, but they are doing what they're intented to do. publicly challange the feds & force the feds to act on immigration prior to the elections or look like asshats for countinuing the status que of looking the other way until it politcally safe to address it.


7yqZWFL.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretend they were never born? Thats ridiculous. My daughter was born overseas last year. She did not get citizenship nor was she eligible for citizenship in the country where she was born. The consulate (US consulate) issued a "Consular Report of Birth Abroad" for her and she later was issued a US passport. She is a "natural born citizen" of the US because I am a natural born citizen of the US. Had I been a naturalized citizen, she would have the same rights of citizenship here.

Children born in the US of parents who are citizens of other countries can get their birth certificates from the consulates representing their respective countries. Just like US citizen children who are born in other countries. This is not unusual - it just means that their children are treated just like our children are treated and that the nationality of parents is conveyed to the children. All countries do that.

Why should the children of illegal immigrants be conveyed the rights of US citizens? It is high time that the same rules that are applied in other countries are applied in our own.

Well said. This is a no-brainer outside America, well in countries that are living in the 21st century rather than the 19th.

Edited by Booyah!

According to the Internal Revenue Service, the 400 richest American households earned a total of $US138 billion, up from $US105 billion a year earlier. That's an average of $US345 million each, on which they paid a tax rate of just 16.6 per cent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: China
Timeline

The key phrase in the 14th Amendment is "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...".

A quick google gave me this link:

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

Original intent of the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

Free! Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"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."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Supreme Court decisions

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.


____________________________________________________________________________

obamasolyndrafleeced-lmao.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol at Arizona. Can they secede from the union yet?


N400 CITIZENSHIP STAGE

23-DEC-2016 -:- N400 form mailed to Dallas, TX Lockbox (USPS EXPRESS)

27-DEC-2016 -:- N400 form delivered/picked up by USCIS

01-JAN-2017 -:- N400 form fee check cashed by USCIS

04-JAN-2017 -:- N400 form received per NOA1

09-JAN-2017 -:- N400 form NOA1 notice date

14-JAN-2017 -:- N400 form NOA1 on hand through USPS

30-JAN-2017 -:- N400 fingerprint taken

01-FEB-2017 -:- N400 interview schedule process started

26-JUL-2017 -:- N400 interview date set (01SEP2017)

29-JUL-2017 -:- N400 interview letter on hand

01-SEP-2017 -:- N400 interview date - Interview passed

10-OCT-2017-:- N400 oath ceremony letter on hand (oath on 26OCT2017)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Lol at Arizona. Can they secede from the union yet?

Why would they do that? They're acting within their rights as a state.

find that the conservatives here are only worried of someone that may get ahead of them working in a farm

find that liberals here often support criminals before their next door neighbor.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
It is high time that the same rules that are applied in other countries are applied in our own. It is the responsibility of the foreign parents and the foreign consulates to ensure the documentation of their foreign citizens. It is not the responsibility of the States or our Federal Government.

The more I have read on this subject, the more I fully agree. It will be terribly unpopular if 1.) a case were to be brought ot the SCOTUS and they ruled in favor of not granting citizenship to those born here on US soil "just because" they were born here, irrespective of the immigration status/intent of their parents or 2.) a law were passed clarifying.


RoC Timeline

08/20/2012: Sent I-751 to California Service Center

Our Immigration Checklist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Philippines
Timeline

My daughter was born overseas last year. She did not get citizenship nor was she eligible for citizenship in the country where she was born. The consulate (US consulate) issued a "Consular Report of Birth Abroad" for her and she later was issued a US passport.

Children born in the US of parents who are citizens of other countries can get their birth certificates from the consulates representing their respective countries. Just like US citizen children who are born in other countries. This is not unusual - it just means that their children are treated just like our children are treated and that the nationality of parents is conveyed to the children. All countries do that.

That sounds weird and scary to Americans who are clueless about how immigration works in most countries. If you applied the same tactic used in this country to the nation where your daughter was born, you should have screamed racism and xenophobia. Of course nobody there would give a damn there but that shouldn't be a surprise.


David & Lalai

th_ourweddingscrapbook-1.jpg

aneska1-3-1-1.gif

Greencard Received Date: July 3, 2009

Lifting of Conditions : March 18, 2011

I-751 Application Sent: April 23, 2011

Biometrics: June 9, 2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline

find that the conservatives here are only worried of someone that may get ahead of them working in a farm

they better get to picking then.


* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...