Citizenship From Birth

[spookyturtle 9,465]

What is the requirement for Australian citizenship? Do you have to have a criminal record or have been in prison?

[Atencio 43]

why wouldn't you want it to change? and what is fair about taking a plane ride at 7 months pregnant to download a baby in an emergency room at taxpayer cost? and what is fair about jumping across the border to have a baby in an emergency room at taxpayer cost?

There are plenty of other laws that make sure that baby is born at tax payer expense. Citizenship has nothing to do with it.

if for good reason, it should change. given overwhelming support for the AZ law among everyday americans (not the special interest lobby), it seems most americans would agree that there is a good reason for changing the 14th amendment.

The majority of people don't come to the U.S, to have babies. They come here to work. Why don't we deal with protecting the border instead of trying to change a law that quite frankly I don't think stands a snowball chance in hell of ever being changed. Conservative President and conservative Congress change things? Yes sure. Regan legalized 1.7 million illegals. Bush Jr. tried to push his own amnesty bills.

Citizenship is something people should aspire to acquire and work towards, it should certainly not be mocked by being handed out like some discount coupons - for all to take. Thankfully my own country will never disrespect the country by handing out citizenship like that; which is probbaly why it means so much.

So prior to August 20, 1986 your countries citizenship didn't mean much? I am glad to see you finally feel it is worth something.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Birthright citizenship for ant Tom, ####### or Harry was not what the framers of the 14th Amendment intended. They made that clear. It is activist courts that expanded birthright citizenship beyond the original target - freed slaves. At the time the amendment was passed, states determined citizenship and controlled immigration. The framers understood that freedmen would have been discriminated against by bigoted state legislatures, and the amendment was meant to circumvent that. This intent is a far cry from the birthright citizenship created by court rulings.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Birthright citizenship for ant Tom, ####### or Harry was not what the framers of the 14th Amendment intended. They made that clear. It is activist courts that expanded birthright citizenship beyond the original target - freed slaves. At the time the amendment was passed, states determined citizenship and controlled immigration. The framers understood that freedmen would have been discriminated against by bigoted state legislatures, and the amendment was meant to circumvent that. This intent is a far cry from the birthright citizenship created by court rulings.

Bullsh!t. Read the arguments made prior to the ratification of the Birthright Citizenship Clause.

[Atencio 43]

Birthright citizenship for ant Tom, ####### or Harry was not what the framers of the 14th Amendment intended. They made that clear. It is activist courts that expanded birthright citizenship beyond the original target - freed slaves. At the time the amendment was passed, states determined citizenship and controlled immigration. The framers understood that freedmen would have been discriminated against by bigoted state legislatures, and the amendment was meant to circumvent that. This intent is a far cry from the birthright citizenship created by court rulings.

I think you are referring to Civil Rights Act of 1866. The 14th Amendment did among other things give backing to the civil rights act.

[peejay 327]

The majority of people don't come to the U.S, to have babies. They come here to work. Why don't we deal with protecting the border instead of trying to change a law that quite frankly I don't think stands a snowball chance in hell of ever being changed. Conservative President and conservative Congress change things? Yes sure. Regan legalized 1.7 million illegals. Bush Jr. tried to push his own amnesty bills.

Reagan's misguided amnesty was actually passed by a Democratic congress...he signed it. Many close to him have suggested that had he known what harm it would eventually cause he never would have done it.

Bush got nowhere with his push for amnesty even with a Republican majority congress. The American people raised holy hell and that foolishness was dropped. Obummer isn't having much luck pushing his amnesty plans either even though his party controls both houses of congress. The American people don't want it and congress is reluctant to go out on a limb to rile voters. Obummer tries to play both sides of the fence, but just ends up looking like the liar he is.

There are millions and millions of anchor babies born to millions of illegal aliens, so to pretend it is an insignificant phenomenon is kind of ludicrous. Americans are starting to wake up to this lunacy and see it is not good for us or our country to be so open with our borders or cheapening US citizenship.

[peejay 327]

Bullsh!t. Read the arguments made prior to the ratification of the Birthright Citizenship Clause.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/268032-sen-kyl-backs-anchor-baby-hearing/page__p__4105378#entry4105378

[ready4ONE 5,400]

why wouldn't you want it to change? and what is fair about taking a plane ride at 7 months pregnant to download a baby in an emergency room at taxpayer cost? and what is fair about jumping across the border to have a baby in an emergency room at taxpayer cost?

if for good reason, it should change. given overwhelming support for the AZ law among everyday americans (not the special interest lobby), it seems most americans would agree that there is a good reason for changing the 14th amendment.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I think you are referring to Civil Rights Act of 1866. The 14th Amendment did among other things give backing to the civil rights act.

Nope, I'm referring to the amendment.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Bullsh!t. Read the arguments made prior to the ratification of the Birthright Citizenship Clause.

I know what I'm talking about.

[mawilson 2,133]

Quit trying to ** with the Constitution! We're not everybody else. This is America, dammit. Keep your grimy hands off the 14th Amendment!

The Constitution says "all persons born ... and subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]",

not "all persons born". If the place of birth was all that was material, they wouldn't have added

the jurisdiction provision.

[Heracles 417]

Quit trying to ** with the Constitution! We're not everybody else. This is America, dammit. Keep your grimy hands off the 14th Amendment!

Slim = Mark = ElBuscador

Basically, just replace the issue, insert fingers in ears and you guys have the same illogical / ideological stance.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Heracles

[Heracles 417]

How do you know? It could change in the future.

They actually US style laws regarding this in their Constitution, but amended it.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Heracles

[mawilson 2,133]

Slim = Mark = ElBuscador

I am not Steven.

I used to be against a repeal of the 14th Amendment, but after seeing this, I believe it's now a national security issue.

[Heracles 417]

I am not Steven.

I used to be against a repeal of the 14th Amendment, but after seeing this, I believe it's now a national security issue.

Not you dude, the other clown.

How can anyone deny the problem with this, or refuse to ponder why no other civilized country allows it themselves. It's not even China only doing it, as ABC national news the other night had a segment on it, showing people from all over the world doing the same thing. Illustrating that there are now special hotels and clinics setup to exploit this.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Heracles