Day One: GOP Congressman Introduces Bill to End ‘Birthright Citizenship’
- Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:13am by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
Before new members of Congress had a chance to celebrate their swearing-in ceremonies Wednesday, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was hard at work keeping his promise to address loopholes in America’s immigration laws.
On the first day of the 112th Congress, King introduced a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, a measure that would end automatic citizenship for anyone born on American soil — so-called “anchor babies.” Instead, King’s proposal would end “birthright citizenship” by mandating than only children of citizens and legal immigrants permanently living in the country or immigrants enlisted in the military be granted U.S. citizenship.
According to King, the number of babies born to undocumented immigrants runs from 340,000 to as many as 750,000 and that existing law does not discourage pregnant women without citizenship from giving birth in the United States to guarantee their newborns access to state and federal services. “Sometimes by plan, (they) have a baby here so they can cash into this great ATM called America,” King said last November.
Such “anchor babies,” King says, strain the country’s resources, a “substantial” burden on government services.
Many conservatives have called for changing the 14th Amendment, but King insists that ending birthright citizenship through legislative action is an easier route.
“We need to address anchor babies,” King told Politico Wednesday. “This isn’t what our founding fathers intended.”
Republicans grabbed headlines last summer after Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) criticized the longstanding law, saying it encourages pregnant women to come to the country to have children so they can eventually become citizens themselves.
Though Politico predicts that immigration legislation isn‘t high on the House GOP’s list of legislative priorities at this point, at least five members have signed on as co-sponsors for King’s bill: Reps. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., Gary Miller, R-Calif., Rob Woodall, R-Ga., Brian Bilbray R-Calif., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.
In a separate effort, the New York Times reported Wednesday that Republican state lawmakers across the country plan to introduce similar legislation in at least 14 states. Though they acknowledge the bills aren‘t likely to have a practical effect on stemming the tide of illegal immigration in the near future as they’re challenged in court, representatives from Arizona, Georgia, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina said they hoped the Supreme Court would ultimately give the green light for legislative action in Washington.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 679 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 530 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 424 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 329 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 276 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 284 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 167 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 276 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (157)
love the kids
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 7:27amWhenever the Democrats talk about certian legislation, like health care for example, they always say, “We are the only industrialized nation that dosen’t do or have __________”. Well, Every other industrialized nation in the world does not have birth right citizenship, in fact, NO other nation does.
Report Post »There for, this should be taken away immediately. Their other arguement is that times have changed and certian things in the constution should be changed, this would be one of them, the reason for the birth right was a good one, but has outlived it’s usefullness.
Republic Under God
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:18amActually..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Report Post »BehindBlueEyes
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:55amThis is a good start and its long over due. It would help if we could secure the border too.
Report Post »ZeitgeistBuster
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:32amI lived in Mexico for Seven years.
I can tell you without any hesitation that Mexico DOES NOT CONFER CITIZENSHIP on babies born in their territory if their parents are “undocumented”. In fact anyone unlucky enough to fall into the hands of Federal Officials under such compromising circumstances will be lucky to get away with simple deportation. More likely is being threatened, robbed, unsavory treatment of the wife , a jail sentence and then you can go home once your family comes up with the money to pay your “fines”.
So yeah, I WILL NOT COUNTENANCE ANYONE who tries to tell me how “unfair” immigrants are treated here in America! Don’t even try it, because I will eviscerate any philosophical argument with real life experience.
But I also need to say that just about all of us have been off the mark on this immigration issue due to us over-reacting to the obstinacy of the politicians’ foot-dragging in order to keep the border open as well as (in my case anyway) our disgust with the pressure groups like LA RAZA stirring up anti-gringo sentiment as much as possible.
My position? I AM AGAINST ANYONE WHO TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE HELPLESS!
How does that apply to illegal immigration? Buckle up man! We are about to expose a vipers den of self interests.
-The Republicans for bending to the lobby efforts of big buisness to lower labor costs across the board with increased competition for low to mid range jobs.
-The Democrats for rubbing their greedy hands together while they worked to create a new class of dependents and future voting block.
-La Raza, La Mecha, etc. etc. for fighting for the status quo of an open border in order to build up thier political power on the backs of the swelling ranks of the helpless “inducumented” who now have to look to them for relief,
Sickening on all three counts.
Report Post »ZeitgeistBuster
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 7:54amCLOSING THE BORDER – It’s the Humanitarian Answer.
We in America are big on being fair, and looking for what is right. That’s good.
But we are being poked in the chest by the progressives in order to elicit a “bigoted” response. Today I’m turning the tables on them.
It’s time for a realization to dawn on the average Liberal on this issue. You guys are advocating an Anti-Humanitarian position! You have been deceived that what you are doing is laudable and moral. Nothing could be further from the truth my friends!
What is upright and moral about forcing those who are legitimately looking for a better life to brave the dangers of the wilderness to get here? Please explain to me how leaving these people to risk their life with the Javalinas, the Rattlesnakes, exposure to the elements and the cruel whims of the drug runners who steal from and abuse the helpless immigrant who crosses paths with them… explain to me how that is the compassionate position!
How does LA Raza escape criticism when they WANT a guy to come here without papers! They need to be exposed as the greedy users of the helpless that they are! WHO would need LA RAZA advocating for them if you had entered with permission and could come and go at will. But Noooo…. LA RAZA and Liberals/progressives have to lobby for an open border and don’t give a thought to the meat grinding machine they keep well lubricated that is literally chewing up families. Not a thought about the poor guy who once he makes it here is essentially trapped here, and too bad for him if there is a family emergency back home, because the sacrafice was too great to go back and then run the gauntlet again.
And what about his wife who is now a single mom who is less well equiped to keep the kids from drugs and gangs?
You know what? Sometimes you Liberals make me sick how you don’t think your positions through!
How about lobbying for a bigger front door? Isn’t that the only way to respect the human dignity of the person who wants to come here… by allowing them to present their case and if approved come on over with their dignity intact? Be it for a temporary work situation, or to come here to become a citizen because they are on fire about a country that will step out of the way and give it your best shot at reaching your true potential, instead of strangling you for trying harder.
All of this and I haven’t gotten to the terrorists who are paying $20,000 a head to the human traffickers to come here.
Go ahead and call me a bigot for wanting to close the border! I‘m not afraid anymore because it’s not me who has taken the thoughtless and ultimately cruel position on this issue. Rather it is you who must now be called to an account to explain yourself!
It is time to wake up and stop arrogantly assuming you are in the right. And ….. change!
Report Post »cykonas
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 8:38amZeit,
Report Post »All of your points are well taken and equally well presented. Please, however, don’t give the Repub/conservitive/right a pass. They have made a contribution to this problem, arguably for a different reason, but no less signifcant. In my opinion, King and his Party are no less sanctimonious on this issue than are the other Party. Had Reagan’s 1986 “amnesty” been implemented, and enforced by each successive administration, as it was sold to us we likely are not having this discussion today.
ZeitgeistBuster
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:27amThank you CYKONAS. In no way did I leave the Republicans innocent on this issue of Using and Abusing Illegal Immigrants. My criticisms actually overlap within the parties. Republicans like McCain are on record pining for the “Latino” vote, thinking that the only way to court it is to pander to the open borders lobby.
And George Bush showed himself to be thick necked and stubborn on promoting Amnesty, and to hell with all of the arguments and concerns to the contrary.
Also I specifically mentioned Republicans in my post:
“My position? I AM AGAINST ANYONE WHO TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE HELPLESS!
How does that apply to illegal immigration? Buckle up man! We are about to expose a vipers den of self interests.
-The Republicans for bending to the lobby efforts of big buisness to lower labor costs across the board with increased competition for low to mid range jobs.”
I called the McCain Kennedy “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill Civil War Legislation….. because had it passed, within a year the American people would have realized that the politicians had neutralized the Constitution by opening up the flood gates to a massive voting bloc that had no organic connection to our history or to our mindset of individualism.
The government BY LAW limited itself to a 24 hour background check to find a reason to deny an applicant a Z-Visa, after which the Visa is automatically granted, no if‘s and’s or but’s. They give themselves weeks to check me out if I want to own a gun! What gives?
Then you add to that the provision for chain migration, where the holder of the Z-Visa after a year could bring in NOT immediate family, but the Extended family.
The Heritage Foundation ran the numbers given the low-ball estimate of 12 million illegal immigrants as a seed number and said that within 10 to 15 years chain migration would swell those numbers to 80 million or possibly as high as 120 million!
But the tale grows worse still! The damn fools in government were going to leave the window for applying for a Z-Visa open for a whole year! I remember the news reports from Pakistan of people being interviewed who were cheering about how they were going to Mexico to sneek into America and become a citizen with false proof of a work history establishing FALSELY their presence in the country in the time frame specified by the Bill. And with a 24 hour limitation on checking the paperwork and a guaranteed Visa, how many more millions would have poured into the country to apply for the Z-Visa beyond the 12 million already here?
BOTH PARTIES were pushing this mess! Bush told congress “I’ll see you at the signing.”
I wrote every single Senator and Representative…. every single one of them…. explaining what a foolish act of betrayal they were about to commit.
I also told them that things would not work out like they calculated. I told Dems not to expect millions of Democrat voters from all of this influx of people, but instead to expect it all to backfire and blow up in their faces.
I told them that I was advising LA RAZA to take advantage of the gift they were being handed and to jump out in front of these newly minted “Americans” and transform themselves into a political party that was more “representativo” of the language and culture of these new citizens.
How could they resist the temptation to become a political party of 120 million people who would only quickly swell their ranks from there? Imagine how tied down the US would become with three political parties when as it is we can barely act in our own self interest on the world stage.
Report Post »cykonas
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:48amZeit,
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 7:54am
CLOSING THE BORDER – It’s the Humanitarian Answer.
I stand corrected. I didn’t realize the earlier post in which you talk about some of the Republican failings on the issue was also your post. My response was based on what I read in the post referrence above. Now that I’ve reread them both together I see your argument more clearly. I will stick with my original comment, now applying it to both posts; well said, well presented.
Report Post »zorro
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:50amGreat posts, man.
I grew up in a border town and often went to Mexico with my friends. My dad always trained us to lie if we ever got in trouble. He‘d tell us to NEVER say we’re US citizens but say we’re Mexican citizens and he even made us memorize the name, number, and address of my aunt who lives out there so we could claim citizenship. I never had to use if but my brother often did. :-)
We can make all the changes we want to make to our constitution, remove all welfare, punish employers, deport, whatever! Nothing, absolutely nothing, is going to stop the problem until the borders are secure. Period. All this non-sense will make a little change for a little while and get idiots like McCain re-elected, but it’s not going to make a damn bit of difference in the long run.
Report Post »ZeitgeistBuster
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:01amZORO, thank you sir!
Going to Mexico used to be fun…. not anymore! Que lastima!
Report Post »eyestoseeearstohear
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:28amWell….the FIRST Birthright OR Citizenship task they ought to CLARIFYis, Barack Obama’s.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:11pmHe’s a citizen. His mother was a citizen, so he’s one; that is undisputed. I believe the evidence shows that he was born here and is therefore eligible wao run for President, but that’s a separate issue. That he is a citizen of this country is a certainty.
Report Post »SND97
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:20amOn this one guys, I am against this, this is NOT what our founding Fathers want, and shame on Rep King for lying about this. Any Child born here is ONE of us. Always has been, and always should be. I want ALL of them in Washington to stop playing games with that wonderful document we call the Constitution of The United States Of America, and on this issue King is WRONG!!!
Report Post »Reagan/DeMint.disciple
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:14amYou’re wrong, Hows that ?
Report Post »1776Federalist
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:07pmThe 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, long after our founding fathers had passed away. This amendment was written to solve the problem of citizenship claims of slaves and natives.The parents have to be under complete jurisdiction of the USA before their babies have citizenship. Complete jurisdiction means the parents have to be US citizens.
Report Post »BoilitDown
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:53amFreshmen beware…
Report Post »http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/2010/11/deal-for-new-congressmen-and-women.html
A little pointed humor for you.
justice
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:45amAbout time, why do you people think healthcare got so expensive. We pay for those who do not even pay taxes in this country, and all the kids get free college education. I could not afford to send my son to college so he servrd in military and got his degree. That’s why when Dems bring up issue to have them go to college for 2 years, make them serve and put their lifes on the line for the safety of this country, if they want to live here so bad. Just another hand out, but we regular Americans work your A$$ off and save for your future.
Report Post »BoilitDown
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:39amIllegal aliens will vote out politicians who support this change in the laws. So, what are we going to do about that? Many of our representatives believe illegals have the right to vote.
Report Post »Moment of Clarity
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:17amgreat was to come out of the box – it should be a bit more restrictive tho – at lease one of the parents has to be a legal citizen in order for a newborn to be a citizen – if both parents are immigrants, legal or illegal, newborns are not US citizens
Report Post »bolec slodkie
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 8:25amThat was the law when Obama was born in Hawaii. Talk about an ancor baby.
Report Post »Protege
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:08amStep1: Identify.
Step 2: Deport.
Step 3: If they come back, send them home again, charging their original nation $50,000 for the trouble each time they are caught.
That solves the illegals coming here.
As for the kids:
Step 1: Identify.
Step 2: Offer parents a free trip home in accordance with the above doctrine for them and the baby.
Step3: If the parents refuse, ship them home alone, put the kid up for adoption, and charge the foreign government for care of the child until an American family takes the child in.
Hit them where they live: in the wallet. Works every time.
Report Post »ZeitgeistBuster
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:51amAre you even human PROTEGE? You can’t split up a family like that! Whatever happens I will not rip a kid out of the arms of its parents. What a sickening thought.
I understand protecting the integrity of the country, but there is such a thing as screwing up because of being overzealous. It would be good to turn it down a click or two.
I have been thinking about what Newt Gringrich said a few months back about this. AFTER sealing the border, we need citizen volunteer panels in every community to decide the immigrant status of those who live among us illegally. The trouble makers MUST GO. The other cases can be weighed on a case by case basis. Those recently arrived are given maybe a one year work visa after which they must return to their country of origin for a year before applying for anything else. If they violate that then they permanently loose the privilege of access to the country.
Those who have a good relationship with the community and have roots can be given a permanent visitor status without voting rights, and the opportunity to apply for citizenship.
Being mad at immigrants whether illegal or not is playing into the progressives hand. Set your sights higher. It is those who control the levers of government who are the big problem here. Big salute to Ted Kennedy on that count! What a worthless give-the-store-away kind of politician he was.
Report Post »cykonas
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:04amI respectfully disagree, Protege. Step one has to be closing the border. You can identify and deport as much, and as quickly, as a new bureaucracy can be created to do it but if the border is still open illegals will continue to flood in faster than you deport. And, you will very likely have one more huge government agency or program sucking money out of the economy.
Report Post »shorthanded12
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:09am@PROTEGE Your solution is dead on. But take it one step further. Give States/FEDs the right to sieze foriegn assets. Since 70% of the Illeagals come from Mexico force American companies to bring there businesses back to the United States or leave Mexico permantly.
Report Post »Cuthalu
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:58amActually all they really need to do is not remove the 14th admendment or even create a new one, they need to clarify the 14th admendment for what it is meant to cover once and for all.
Report Post »csbulldog
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:46pmIt’s pretty darn clear already. You not only have to be born here but “and under the jurisdiction of”…. the USA to be a citizen. An illegal alien is NOT under the jurisdiction of the USA, that is why they have a consulate.
Report Post »TRUTHSEEKINGAL
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:58amWhy are my posts cherry picked and frequently no shows. I do not post attacks, hateful or inciteful comments. I have been on board with TheBlaze since it’s inception,and a supporter (viewer) of Glenn before he left CNN. I believe in our founding principles and feel I can ad to the discourse.What gives?
Report Post »Reagan/DeMint.disciple
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:08amIDK I’m reading this one..
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 10:26amYour post does not automaticcaly show at times, We must wait a little while.
Report Post »rbqueen
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:30am@truthseekingal – Have you checked on your posts say about 5 minutes after you post them? A lot of times they are not posted for a few minutes and if you don’t go back and check them until even a couple of hours later, sometimes it’s hard to find them. I would say to make a habit of checking after just a few minutes because that‘s what I do to make sure my posts get on there and I haven’t had a problem finding them doing it that way.
Report Post »neverending
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:41amIt is about time we start doing something about getting the illegals out of here and stop punishing the taxpayer for having to support them all. Birthright citizenship is a great place to start. first they are using it in a manner that never was intended. They come across the border just as they are ready to have the baby and then we are stuck with them. I, for one, am sick and tired of it. Get everyone of them sent back to where they came from.
Report Post »Reagan/DeMint.disciple
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:07amExactly , we pay for them but every chance they get, they S#!T on us, and NEVER a thank you.. The only way they repay us is to burn the American flag… And we’re suppose to worry about where they go, or how they will survive ? WTF ???
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:32amOkay, if they’re not American citizens what are they? Citizens of their parents’ home countries, a place they’ve probably never even been to? Are they going to be subject to deportation to a country they’ve never even been to? Will we deport them to a country they’ve never been to even if they don’t speak the language of the place we’re sending them to? What if the countries we try to send them to say they’re not their citizens either since they weren’t born there? Where will they go? If they’re not citizens but we can’t deport them, what will they do? How will they make a living as citizens of nowhere? Will they all live in airports like the guy from The Terminal? Will they spend their entire youths in detention facilities even though they’ve done nothing wrong and it’s not their fault they’re here?
Report Post »iamhungry
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:55amExactly. It‘s easy to say they aren’t citizens but difficult to implement.
Report Post »cykonas
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 7:47amIt can’t be done effectively until the border is closed and existing immigration law is enforced, in my opinion. I also think it’s too late to do anything about those that are already here, and have been born.
Report Post »Helldogger
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 8:06amYou are obviously ignorant of the invasion.
Report Post »Reagan/DeMint.disciple
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:02amWoe is me … Look at the bleeding hearts bleed… pathetic.
Report Post »MamaofJ5
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:52amif they don’t speak the language of their home country, then how do they communicate with their parents who do not speak English?
Report Post »halfabrain
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:59amYes. They are legal residents of the parents country of origin. Not my fault their parent or parents chose to come here ILLEGALLY. Not my fault they don’t speak the language of the parents country of origin. It all falls back on the parents.
Report Post »pavnvet
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 10:16amSimple, they are citizens of the same country as their parents. As the law is now, they have dual citizenship. All this would do is remove the dual citizenship of these anchor babies.
Every parent that registers a child in school should be required to show their (the parents) proof of citizenship or legal residency. The same applies when a woman has to use government supported services in the birth of their child. Health care and education are not rights granted under the Constitution.
If this bothers you so much, I would suggest that you bleeding hearts personally provide the funds necessary for illegal (read, criminal) immigrants to receive health care and an education. You see, the problem is that you are in the minority opinion.
Report Post »firstlast
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 10:41am@REAGAN…bleeding heart is just a term to describe compassion; there is nothing pathetic about it. Jesus had a bleeding heart; ironic that the image of the sacred heart depicts a pierced and BLEEDING heart. I agree with CHET; its not that easy and the implications are far-reaching
Report Post »1776Federalist
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:01pmThat was the intent of the law originally. It was never meant to deal with immigrants. The baby belong to the country that has COMPLETE jurisdiction over the parents, which would be their country of citizenship.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:25pmHalfabrain
Report Post »It’s not your fault they’re here but it’s not theirs either. What happens when they grow up, will they still have to worry about being thrown out of the only place they’ve ever known? Is it fair for people who’ve lived here therir whole lives and never done anything wrong to have no rights? Won’t we have to make them citizens if they’re still here when they reach adulthood? If so, how is that different from making them citizens from birth, other than creating a bureaucratic mess? What if they grow up and want to leave? Can they, with no passport and no ID? Why would another country think they have to take someone who has no paperwork except an American birth certificate that says their parents were, let’s say, Juan and Maria Gonzalez? How would they even be able to prove that they aren’t citizens?
Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:38pmPavnvet
Report Post »How can it possibly be right to deny an education to somebody who hasn’t done anything wrong? Do you want to send them to their parents’ home country without even receiving the level of education they would have gotten there? How is that fair – to condemn somebody to a life of poverty and ignorance because of something their parents did, something they had no control over? Shouldn’t you have to do something illegal to be considered illegal? Is it a crime to be born?
BlazingInSC
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:57pm@Chet Hempstead
Report Post »LOL – You cracked me up with that… “Will we deport them to a country they‘ve never been to even if they don’t speak the language of the place we’re sending them to?” Just a hunch here, but I‘m guessing the anchor baby probably can’t speak the language… One other thing, do you HONESTLY think they‘re going to learn English seeings as how their parents’ native language is the one they will be most exposed to growing up anyhow?!? Do you need cork to stop the bleeding in your heart there? Nobody is saying it’s their fault they are here, but no matter whose “fault” it is, I can say this – it should NOT be the fiscal problem of REAL American Citizens.
csbulldog
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:42pmThey are citizens of their parents country because the parents are not under the jurisdiction of the USA. It does not matter if they have not been to that country or what language they speak, that is for their parents to deal with. Do we not send murderers to prison because they have children? I would say they should have thought of the consequences before they acted.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:46pmBlazingInSC
Report Post »Babies can’t speak any language, but they’ll grow up. If they live here they’ll learn English, and so will their parents. If you show them the mercy of allowing them to go to school they’ll end up speaking English better than their parents’ native language. What if they grow up and have kids of their own, will those kids be citizens? In the future, will you have to show your grandparents’ birth certificates to get a social security card and a legal job? If you were born here and aren’t a citizen because your parent were born here and weren’t citizens and the country your grandparents came from isn’t a country any more by the time anybody does anything about it, where are you a citizen of? If an American birth certificate isn’t proof of citizenship what will be? Will ancestry.com assume absolute authority over who can or can’t make a living wage or send their children to school?
tankerBigRed1
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:36pmMy grandmother was in this situation- she was born – lived all her life in 1 county of Ia but had to register as alien- It was cuz of sed acts-she married an immigrant from Denmark who had not completed his citz process– made them so mad he never finished & she said h## with it–I quired Senator bout when she was in 90′s- he said quit filling -see where they deport her to- she quit filling & never a peep or inquiry..
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:30amHere comes that perfect storm Glenn likes to talk about so much. Next thing you know they are going to start taxing anyone who isn’t X-tian.
Report Post »ronmorgen
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:37amYou have a demon.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:31pmOnly in my butt.
Report Post »timej31
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:22amI know that my great grandpa told me his great grandpa didn’t travel 6000 miles for months to get here only to see this contry over ran by immigrants.
Report Post »Hmschlmom
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:37amAnd my beautiful sister in law, did not jump through all of the hoops to get here as a LEGAL citizen (From INDIA), to watch her new homeland of choice be over run by those who could not be bothered to come here the legal way.
I have great respect for those who come here the right way… and yes, great contempt for those who see obeying our laws as optional…
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:22amLet the goosstepping begin!
Report Post »kunman
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:08pmMore like, let common sense begin.
Report Post »GUT_CHECK
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:12amin the amendment, “under the jurisdiction” would entail they legally belong here.
Report Post »it’s really that simple.
the illegal mexi-mama and baby are under the jurisdiction of their homeland, not mine.
iwantmycountryback
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:12amI have a question … if someone, a non-citizen, comes to our country and commits a crime and has an ability to run to their consolate for protection … would they be “under the juridiction” of the United States or the country from wence they came????
Report Post »bolec slodkie
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 8:21amOur laws apply to everyone here including univited guest. The rights of men (and women) are from GOD and are extended to everyone even those who arm themselves against us. THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP ARE NOT AUTOMATICALY GRANTED TO ANYONE WHO WANDERS ACROSS OUR BORDERS.
Report Post »1776Federalist
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:56pmWhen you are in a foreign country, you are under the jurisdiction of their laws. However, you do not enjoy all of the benefits of citizenship with comes from being completely under their jurisdiction in all matters.Babies born in the US have citizenship to the country in which the parents have citizenship.
Report Post »MamaofJ5
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:09amI’m very pleased, although I doubt it goes anywhere at this time. When I had my last child 3 years ago the doc I used accepted medicaid. His office employed a translater just for the illegals having babies. What would make me angry is they would come in pregnant with two or three other little ones and that they got medicaid. All these libs screaming they don’t get welfare, whatever. The babies not a citizen yet, so how do they qualify?
Report Post »iwantmycountryback
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:06amGood point. Since according to the Libs, a baby isn’t viable until it is born …. how DOES it qualify???
Report Post »NJartificer
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:45amWOW here we go……. just when I thought I could track thier votes with a pencil and paper it looks like Im gonna have to break down and buy me one of them there computer thingys
Report Post »the_ancient
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:28amThis is only a band aid to cover the Gun Shot wound that is Entitlements and Welfare.
While I do‘nt think the 14th amendment is being accurately interpreted so that it allows anchor baby’s, the bigger solution is to end the entitlements that encourage illegal immigration in the first place. Mean No Federal Dollars for people not in the county legally, period. (I would like to see no federal dollars for any welfare, if a state wants a welfare program they can have any style the citizens of that state wants to support, Welfare should not be a federal issue)
Report Post »click4cheapandeasyweb
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:31amIt’s a start.
Report Post »scguitar
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:41amTHE_ANCIENT. You are dead on. However, this is a good start and you have to start somewhere.
Report Post »Plankchapel
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:28amAMEN!!! Kill the incentive to come across the border and you will have them going home, too.
Report Post »Cuthalu
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:02amWinning even little battles in this war of ideas will go a long way to encourage more, much needed changes to take place.
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 10:15amthe_ancient
Report Post »To make it work, we need to be able to ASK them if they are legal/illegal. And right now that can’t be done.
To me, all immigrants, when they become legal the correct way, should be finger printed and in a system. If you are not in that system, explain why not. Great way to catch illegals.
Barry Soetoro
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:25amU.S. Constitution, Article 14, Section 1:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…”
John Bingham, the primary author, intended the Fourteenth Amendment in part, to define and provide citizenship to emancipated slaves during the reconstruction period. Because they were not made citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, generations thereafter could not claim to have at least one U.S. citizen parent to qualify for citizenship. It’s interesting to note that Representative Bingham never intended this amendment to serve as a basis of citizenship to foreigners, who would otherwise have to apply for naturalization to become a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Report Post »scguitar
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:28amI understand what you are saying. The term “persons” in the constitution refers to blacks. So does that mean technically this does not apply to illegal aliens? Or do they now have to change the first part of the 14th amendment?
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:36amGreat example of an e2 principle…Thank You!
Report Post »SubHuman
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:02amThey only have to amend the constitution if the Supreme Court ignores the meaning of the 14th amendment. Because is this passes this will end up there. And it’s going to be a 5-4 decision either way.
Report Post »Krutch
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:04pmWhat part of ILLEGAL confuses you?
Report Post »csbulldog
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:33pm“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…” The second part of the amendment is there for reason. Anyone not here legally is NOT under the jurisdiction of the USA, so their babies are NOT citizens of the USA. Even though it was written over a 100 years ago…looks pretty clear to me.
Report Post »scguitar
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:23amFinally. A common sense law to combat illegal immigration! Lets hope this goes through. If it somehow passes the senate, Obama wont sign it. He wants amnesty and a borderless society like all global marxists.
Report Post »TRUTHSEEKINGAL
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:40amI can see the veto pen from here. Obamao would never “alienate” a potential voting block. IMO he has not abandoned his amnesty manifesto,look for more back door policies ,going around the congress over the next year and a half. If Dingy Harry was able to use the union serviced voting machines ,what’s to prevent the “Chicago Machine” that pulled it off in 2008, from success again. Does anyone really believe acorn was rendered ineffective by that temporary sanction?
Report Post »Afungi
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:20amAlright lets see where everyone really stands on this!
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:27amIt does not matter how they stand. It only matters if they really do something about it. Lip service means NOTHING.
Report Post »quiet little lamb
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 7:20amnice try, but with the senate and pres still dems nothing will happen….and sometimes nothing is good. I see this congress as only passing stuff that will be 100% wanted by americans….hopefully. thank god i‘m in the state i’m in. Even our liberals are conservative.
Report Post »Wiz001
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 8:42amThe feds. has no say in this matter anyway. It is the states that have the power to certify birth.. There will be enough governor to make this happen if they really want to. Why do you think obummer is able to hide his phony certificate? if it was in a national data base someone would have it by now. The Fed. passed this law so southrn ( mostly) states couldn’t stop slave babies from being considered US Citizens. It was a nobal cause, that got perverted by some lawyer demo. to illegally build their base of minions.
Report Post »God Bless Our Troops
Reagan/DeMint.disciple
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 8:49am@POLWATCHER , Bill also likes being invited to the white house Christmas parties and such… As I’ve said before, I stopped watching Bill, because he straddles both sides of he fence, claiming to be fair and balanced..He’s just a closet Liberal…
Report Post »click4cheapandeasyweb
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:20amGovernment
Day One: GOP Congressman Introduces Bill to End ‘Birthright Citizenship’
YES!
Gee this is gonna be fun.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:33amI have a question – Rep King stated that “this is not what our founding father intended” – now weren’t the founding fathers immigrants and generations after them, so how can he make that statement?
http://wp.me/pYLB7-uK
Psychosis
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:51am@ walkwithme……………….this was not about immigrants, but about slaves. now it is being used for illegal immigrants, and this congressman is trying to stop it . good for him
if you study the constitution, and the information passed between the authors of the document, you would have known this
the 14th amendment was written explicitly to allow the children of slaves, born in this country, the right to citizenship.
it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants birthing their spawn in our country, and then claiming citizenship…………hence the term anchor baby
Report Post »SubHuman
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:58amThe majority of our Founding Fathers were born and raised here. Many of their parents were also born and raised here. My family came to America in the 1600′s. Nearly 200 years before America was founded. And the 14th amendment dealt with slaves. Not immigrants. So I’m not sure what your basing your argument on other than misinformation.
Report Post »MamaofJ5
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:59amFinally, love it.
Report Post »Freeeedom
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:26amAccording to an article by Ann Coulter, for 100 years the 14th Amendment DID NOT confer citizenship to illegals UNTIL Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into a Supreme Court opinion in 1982 that facilitataed the change. Article – Justice Brennan’s Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=380
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 7:26amBill O‘Reilly disagrees with doing this because he don’t think it will pass. Bill is clearly not a politician. It is imperative to get all these liberal pro illegal immigrant Dems and Repubs on record so they can be defeated in 2012. Without doing this, these liberal politicians can lie their way to victory like they have been doing for years.
Bill also says this is a waste of valuable time. Well how about the Health care bill last year. There was never any greater waste of time than that massive health ruination act that will ruin health care and bankrupt this country. Now we will probably have to spend years of time trying to get rid of this health fiasco.
grandmaof5
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 7:46amThat’s what I keep telling my husband – this will be a very interesting year – what goes around, comes around, and now it is the American people’s turn to take our country back from those who have been trying to destroy the “American dream”. God bless America.
Report Post »bolec slodkie
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 8:16amThis amendment didn’t apply to “Native Americans” either. They were “under the authority of’” their tribe…not the United States of America.
Report Post »hAndyman54
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 8:41amHey walkwithoutme, I think you need to pick up a book now and then. The founding fathers had nothing to do with the 14th amendment you fool. It was adopted in 1868 during Reconstruction, it was intended for the protection of freed slaves and their families. Had nothing to do with wet backs running across the border and dropping babies in Texas.
Reagan/DeMint.disciple
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 8:43amBecause thats what he says.. And it’s exactly right, This is not what the founding fathers intended..
Report Post »Why do you have a problem with protecting your country and your money, from people that come here for no other reason, than to live of the people of the nation ? If that wasn’t the case, then why don’t they come here “legally” ?? I’ll tell you why, It’s too damn hard for lazies… Love your country man, don’t hate it just to be politically correct…
shorthanded12
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:20amMr king has 2 other sponsered bills thats still on the table but of course since they were introduced in 2009 the Rats in charge didnt move them forward.
1. HR 3580 Illeagal Deduction Elimination Act (Nov 16, 2009)
2. HR 997 English Language Unity Act of 2009 (July 2009) This act makes english the official language and forces immigrants to learn as part of citizenship requirement.
Report Post »taskmaster78
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:26amHere Here, I was born in Canada, my father immigrated in 1969, he’d fought in the Korean war for the US and my granddad was born in Falls River Mass., now don’t hold that against him. LOL I became a naturalize citizen in 1974, and my vivid memories of my dad for at least a year studying the constitution the bill of rights, and general history of this great nation remain ingrained in my memory, He’d be tested for his knowledge of the country, this wasn’t a free ride, he’d had a sponsor. This is only right and should be passed overwhelmingly in both the house and the senate without debate.
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:59amEven baby steps move you farther down the correct road.
TY Steve, loved you when I was in Iowa. Will you move to NC please
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 10:04amPolwatcher
Report Post »Bill O’reily is a man in love with himself and his own opinion. Watch him closely, he always thinks he is right. He had to give Obama the benefit of the doubt……..because he, O’reilly, didn’t think Obama was as bad as we all knew. So O’reilly blew us off in favor of his own opinion…which is never wrong according to him.
He is not on my watching list if I want the truth.
CuteGeek
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 10:41amI believe the issue is whether the immigrant is legal or illegal. There is a really big difference in the two. One can get money legally or illegally — when it is illegal it is called stealing or theft.
Report Post »kreese
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 10:44amI hope you’re right, because if it isn’t “fun”, it will be business as usual.
Report Post »Republic Under God
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:01amI don’t care about intent. THe law he is proposing is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Ammendment 14 Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You want to change it, congressman? Have a constitutional convention and make an ammendment!
Report Post »Republic Under God
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:04amSorry, the section does not say slaves, it says ALL PERSONS BORN IN . It’s not one of those It depends on the definition of All Persons or what it means to be “born in the United States.”
Granted their intent may have been for slaves. But they should have been more specific in their verbiage.
Report Post »drawlr
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:53amAll but 8 of the Founding Fathers were American-born. Besides, there was no welfare state for foreigners to take advantage of back then.
Report Post »TheBMT
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:54amWhoa whoa whoa. We want to uphold the constitution and not go around it. YET here we are passing legislation to go around it. COME ON! Do it right!
Report Post »Republic Under God
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:05pmExactly, let’s not Cerry pick tha parts of the Constitution we agree with. I don’t like the anchor baby dilemma but our Constitution makes it so. So we would need to ammend the Constitution.
Report Post »In Fieri
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:10pmI think that there should be a change to the amendment rather than the introduction of the bill itself. IMO it would go against sec 5 of Amend.14. Congress does not have the power to introduce a bill that would restrict Amend14, sec. 1. For everbody who says that the present situation was not the intention, if can find somebody who says that the present situation could very well have been anticipated. Less speculation, more action. When a law is clear, and you do not like it, or how expansive it has become, change it.
Report Post »Dandylyon
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:57pmAt least one is doing something,but lets see how fare he gets and how avid he is about getting it passed.The proof is in the persistance of there convictions.
Report Post »iamhungry
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:12pm@REPUBLIC UNDER GOD, exactly. There either has to be an amendment added concerning the legal status of the persons parents if they want to change this. I don’t think it just breaks the 14th either. It also breaks other amendments concerning punishment (deportation) without due process and the like.
Even if an amendment was passed, what happens to the “non-citizens” when it comes to deport them. Where do you send them? You think other countries will be okay with accepting them? They aren’t their citizens to accept. If no country accepts them, do you put them in holding cells until somewhere random in the world does? Do they stay in Amerca but have no rights?
Report Post »Andiciopec
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:34pmwalkwithme1966 –
George Washington was actually born on US Soil. So has every president of the United States. Even if you do not believe Obama was he was still born to a US Citizen (his mom) with then makes him a US Citizen. You can look-up the law if you don’t believe me.
Report Post »ricklap
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:47pmNO they were NOT immigrants. there was no nation until they MADE one, so there was nothing to immigrate to.
Report Post »Krutch
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:54pmWalkwith, the founders never meant to destroy the country! The citizen-baby thing wasn’t amended to the constitution to kill the country!
Report Post »1776Federalist
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:51pm@ReepulicUnderGod>>> You misunderstand the original intent of the amendment. There was no immigration policy in place in 1868 when it was written, so it did not address immigration specifically. However, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was understood very clearly by the authors and their views were very specific that it did not cover babies born to non citizens of our country. My evidence follows:
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.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” 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.
>>>A person can not be born a foreigner if his parents are citizens of our country. If they are citizens of another country then their children who are born on US soil are citizens of the country that the parents citizenship resides. My sources are found at the website http://www.14thamendment.us.
Report Post »AmericanSoldier
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:16pmI agree 100% with this bill. You are not suppose to be granted automatic citizenship just because you are born on American soil. You are not suppose to be able to benefit from an illegal act. They committed an illegal act, the act of crossing our borders without documentation. To grant their newly born baby free citizenship is benefiting from an illegal act. No more anchor babies!
Report Post »BlazingInSC
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:47pm@Republic Under God
Report Post »First off – the LAST thing we’d want to do is hold a Con Con to amend the Constitution. In the history of this great land, there has only ever been one Con Con (the first one). If we held a Con Con, then our current rule of law, as we know it, will be forever rewritten into obscurity. The amendment process can proceed without a Con Con. BTW, I agree with you. I hate that the language is so very ambiguous, BUT – this legislation is not necessarily unconstitutional either because there is a very clear, distinct, and documented purpose for the 14th Amendment and a proper court of justices (without legal precedence) SHOULD be able to review the actual history to apply the law accordingly with the intent. Of course, we‘re talking about today’s court and Scalia and Roberts would probably support the constitutionality, I’m not sure the other conservatives would have the backbone and well – we know where people like Sotomayor stand on immigration.
Republic Under God
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:18pmAll, Thanks all for the feedback! :)
@1776Federalist I had reasoned that “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was stipulating that the citizen (either born or naturalized) was a citizen thereof being that parents are not at all mentioned in the ammendment. Furthermore, the ammendment’s Section 2 uses pretty specific language when describing the persons/citizens to whom they were referring by the “male citizens twenty-one years of age”. So my reasoning was that if they deemed it important to be specific in Section 2, the ambiguity in Section 1 was intended to be as broad and general as it defined.
I also looked into the case you mentioned and found another:
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Ultimately stipulating that the citizenship for the person born here is dependent on the parents being permanent residents. This is consistent with your assertion concerning “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
God Bless you enlghtened folks. I truly enjoy these types of conversations.
I just realized my handle’s initials are RUG lol :)
Oh and this is the first HUGE response any of my Blaze posts have ever gotten. I am very appreciative of the responses!
While I think intent (WHEN DOCUMENTED) is important in bringing us to an understanding of a law, I am not a fan of intent as THAT can be much more open to interpretation than the letter of the law.
Report Post »dontbotherme
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 7:54pmHey! I like this guy!
Report Post »JKN
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 6:38amMany nurses have reported receiving illegal alien mothers in Texas hospitals literally covered in leaves from just crossing the Rio Grande… This “Anchor Baby” loophole has been exploited to the max. Why can’t Mexico take care of their own people?
Report Post »