LilOlLady's Everlasting Gobstopper Illegal Immigration Thread

[LilOlLady]

Harry Reid tried to end birthright citizenship for illegals in 1993
August 13, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

According to Harry Reid’s own standards, he should lose his entire Hispanic vote over this, right? While Democrats paint Republicans who challenge birthright citizenship as extremists, it turns out that Reid was seventeen years ahead of the curve. In 1993, just after Democrats won the White House, Reid filed a bill that would have done exactly what some Republicans now demand — end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. Kerry Picket digs up the record for the Washington Times:
Title X of the Reid introduced bill shows the Nevada Democrat took Senator Lindsey Graham’s, South Carolina Republican, idea on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and documented it into legislation:

“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.”

Even the summary of the bill contains language that would offend many of Mr. Reid’s supporters who are pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants in the United States:

“A bill to curb criminal activity by aliens, to defend against acts of international terrorism, to protect American workers from unfair labor competition, and to relieve pressure on public services by strengthening border security and stabilizing immigration into the United States.”

Harry Reid tried to end birthright citizenship for illegals in 1993 Hot Air

 

[Angelhair]

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong - but did Harry Reid have a change of heart when, as they say, he married a mexican woman???? One does have to wonder why the radical change in his thinking.

 

[Meister]

That was when democrats weren't as liberal as they are today.

 

[LilOlLady]

Arizona proposal would alter birthright citizenship

Share this on:Mixx Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn January 28, 2011|By Michael Martinez, CNN
The Arizona state legislator who co-sponsored the latest immigration crackdown proposal -- to end citizenship for U.S.-born kids of illegal immigrants -- told CNN Friday that he hopes the legislation will provoke a lawsuit so that the U.S. Supreme Court "can end the controversy over the true meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause."

The legislation was introduced Thursday in the Arizona Legislature and is part of an effort planned in about a dozen states to end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrants, said Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican who's one of two primary sponsors of the bill.

Arizona proposal would alter birthright citizenship - CNN

 

[Grace]

I think some folks in higher power are running the ball right off the field instead of keeping it in play.
There has to be some kind of change, yes. People coming here from other countries (it isn't just Mexico) so their kids can be born here to bypass applying for citizenship needs to be addressed.
Meanwhile, back at the proverbial ranch, those already born here should be able to keep their status as citizens, but with some sort of grandfather clause in effect to protect those born 5 years ago, or even 10 years ago.
With that said.... parents of children born here need to apply for citizenship the legal way so they can be citizens like their children that were born here. If they do not comply or take those steps...well...that's another venue that needs to be discussed by TPTB.

And as usual...it is just my opinion. Your own mileage may vary.

 

[gekaap]

This isn't the first time this bill has come up. They tried to do this a couple years ago, if I remember correctly. But it would be pointless, the Supreme Court has already long ago established that the 14th amendment declares anyone born in the US a citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

 

[Grace]

Yes, but it was also written in a different time by people who had no clue what the future held.


Society changes with time, that is why it (the constitution) has so many amendments attached to it.
The fact is, the resources that were so plentiful when our country was founded are now much more limited. Plus, not counting the hundreds of thousands living here as undocumented bodes not well for our own security much less our own resources.

 

[gekaap]

I don't see why marrying such and such a person should make you change your position. I'm Hispanic, and my position is that the US should do away with the anchor baby loophole, and restrict natural born citizenship to the children of two legal residents, or at least one citizen.

But again, this bill would be unconstitutional. Not only would it violate the well established fact that being born in the US makes a person a citizen regardless of the citizenship of the parents, but it would also violate constitutional separation of powers. The Supreme Court has already established opinions on this matter, and this bill clearly would have been an attempt to circumnavigate the court's constitutional role and powers.

The only way to end the anchor baby loop hole is to amend the constitution.

 

[LilOlLady]

Speeddemon writes me an angry message asking me if I don't understand that a prosperous Mexico would be good for both countries. It never ceases to amaze me just how badly you can be misunderstood on the Net no matter how clearly you try to get your message across. Of course a wealthy Mexico would be a gift to both Mexico and America, demon. The only problem is how to get there.

I'm sick and tired of USMB members regurgitating the same line over and over:

Mexico should do

a)

b)

c)

to become a rich country (and help solve the US problem with illegals).

Well, America ruled Puerto Rico and Cuba as overseas colonies for 50 years. The two countries had MUCH LESS AUTONOMY THAN ANY US STATE.

America had half a century to do

a)

b)

c)

to turn Puerto Rico and cuba into first world nations and failed miserably.

Today more Puerto Ricans live in America than in Puerto Rico itself and the country is not in worse shape only because it is still a US colony in many ways.

The members of this Board talk about economic growth as if it were as simple as a cake recipe!!!! If it is that simple why America failed in PR, Cuba and now in Iraq and Afghanistan?

So stop demanding from Mexico the very same thing America failed to deliver in so many parts of the world!!

You get there the same way Egypt is getting there. Fight the corruption. You don't tuck your tail and run. If you love your country you fight and you die for it. Mexico has plenty wealth. The wealthest man in the world lives in Mexico and is a Mexican.

Sunday, July 08, 2007
Vast Wealth in Mexico - But Not For Sharing


Carlos Slim, a Mexican, is now the world's richest man, beating out even Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. You probably have read this in the papers. What you probably haven't heard is just how obscenely wealthy this man is in real terms - he is worth $67.8 billion in a nation where half the population lives on less than $5 a day. Bill Gates is incredibly wealthy too, but he resides in the US, where the average income is more than three times Mexico's. Moreover, a huge amount of Gates' wealth comes from sales of his products worldwide, while almost all of Carlos Slim's wealth was generated in Latin America only. In other words, it's very debatable as to how much wealth he's actually bringing into Mexico, as opposed to simply taking it out.

Here's another way to look at it: Slim effectively owns 8% of Mexico's wealth. For Bill Gates to do that in the USA, his wealth would have to increase to $13 trillion, or 17 times its current total.

You might think, well OK, he is one really rich guy. But is this really a problem? The answer is yes.

The Shield of Achilles: Vast Wealth in Mexico - But Not For Sharing [Updated]

 

[SAJason]

Good, the 14th amendment was written for newly freed slaves and not anybody who owes allegiance to another country. Hopefully this works.

 

[LilOlLady]

About Natural Resources Found in Mexico
By Kenneth Black,.

From energy to precious metals, Mexico has it all. Mexico's natural resources include oil, gold, copper, silver and natural gas. Many know the beauty of Mexico's natural landscape, and it has been utilized to a great advantage along the coasts, where visitors flock by the millions each year. However, Mexico also has substantial oil reserves, managed by a state-run oil company. For more information, see Resources below.

•Mexico is the sixth largest producer of oil in the world. However, at this point, there is some speculation that it may have reached its peak production capabilities. If that is true, it will need to start searching for other alternatives in energy, much like the United States is already considering. However, for the time being, its oil production makes it somewhat self-sustainable in this area. This allows the country to not take on further national debt for energy needs.
About Natural Resources Found in Mexico | eHow.com

Mexico is more than capable of taking care of it's own, but why should they when they have us to do it for them.

 

[gekaap]

It doesn't matter. The constitution does not change with the whims of popular sentiment. The law remains the law until it is changed. The constitution can be amended if the people see fit, but its application cannot be altered based on the fact that times have changed. We still use the electoral college, even though modern times make it feasible to utilize a direct election of President. We still have a Senate even though times have changed and the one-state/one-vote theory has long been abandoned. Just because people may want to do things differently does not change the constitutionality of a given matter.

A person born in the US is a citizen, regardless of the lineage or the citizenship of the parents. That has been true since the ratification of the 14th amendment. When the issue has been brought before the SCOTUS, the court found that inasmuch as the constitution does not define the meaning of a "natural born citizen" the stipulations of the Common Law of England, having been applicable in the colonies before the constitution, and continuing to so be afterward, remained authoritative. The CLE was explicit about the fact that any child born in England was a citizen of the Crown regardless of where the parents came from, or their citizenship status.

 

[Grace]

Good, the 14th amendment was written for newly freed slaves and not anybody who owes allegiance to another country. Hopefully this works.

Don't know if it will work, but you are correct on the intent of the 14th amendment. As long as it is done in a reasonable manner (like, as if), I think it should be done. Soon.

 

[Tank]

Once Mexicans are the majority, they'll change the 14 amendment

 

[gekaap]

The constitution considers anyone born in the US owes allegiance to the US. It also believes that a person can owe allegiance to another country and the US simultaneously.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

What is it about Islam that some people find so very powerful?

It seems many in this country think people will choose it over their own religion.

Fearing a religions growth means you think it has more to offer people than your own beliefs.

Good questions
Islam has a lot to offer the disenfranchised and disillusioned, it is simple and as logical as a faith can be and if offers the chance for self expression, earthly reward and carnal delights.

 

[Sunni Man]

Islam has a lot to offer the disenfranchised and disillusioned......

This woman is a convert to Islam that I personally know from the mosque in Texas.

Dr. O'leary has a PhD and teaches neuro science at a university in Austin.

So much for your non sense about Islam attracting the disenfranchised and disillusioned.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Lots of tards convert to Islam.

 

[Sunni Man]

Lots of tards convert to Islam.

If that was true, you would have converted years ago.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Yeah, that aught to tell you something, but in your condition ,it wont.