Children of Immigrants Denied Citizenship

http://www.texasobserver.org/children-of-immigrants-denied-citizenship/
Texas denied several visas in 2014 because the immigrant parents born on the US soil didn't have American visas. That surely violates the 14th amendment but is it really a bad thing? We must fight against illegal immigration somehow but how we can do it when thousands of Hispanic women come to America just to give birth to their children? Texas defies the federal law but when the law works against the country it needs to be bypassed IMO.

 

Ye olde anchor baby canard.

So lets just violate the Constitution anytime it is convenient.

 

The 14th Amendment was passed to give citizenship to freed slaves and never intended to facilitate illegal immigration. Apparently even drug cartel king pins know about anchor babies.

And if there is one thing I learned from the latest Supreme Court Obama Care ruling it's that laws only mean what
lawmakers wanted them to mean! Therefore, ipso facto, as night follows day it follows that citizenship should not be conferred simply because your mom squatted and dropped you three feet over the US border.

Ain't the law great?

 

Obama's violated the constitution many times, you don't see the liberals complaining.

BTW, didn't Obama have a US citizen assassinated without the right to a trial?

(Not that I'm upset about that. I think Obama made the right call on that one).

I'm just saying, our Commander in Chief violates the constitution, why can't a state?

 

Congress needs to rewrite the law that governs and defines a natural citizen so that it reads " if within the borders and neither parent a citizen the parents or parent within the border must be a legal residents."

 

Damn, I meant Texas denied several birth certificates.

 

Progressives do it all the time it's almost become a hobby to them.

 

There's this phrase in the 14th that's ignored or twisted, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Senator Howard, who helped write the Amendment, in the debate of the wording of that phrase stated: "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 person."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

So, it can be argued Texas is following the Constitution.

 

A trend that needs to continue and will save this country untold billions and save us from overpopulation.

 

"subject to the jurisdiction there of"

As with most of the Constitution liberals with their abject lack of understanding of the English language do not know what the hell this means.

 

Sanctuary cities do it 24/7/365............ isn't Bobo's illegal drunken uncle still in Boston just as his aunt was before she dropped dead?

 

so amend the Constitution.

nothing stopping you.

 

No need to amend the constitution. The 'subject to the jurisdiction there of' clause is there to specifically prevent the children of aliens from being granted birthright citizenship. Children of aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents. The primary concern was "Indians" who happened to be on US lands for some business or another, but it was also there for diplomats, tourists, etc.

 

Oh...OK. That says a lot about your motives.

 

Only the left.

 

Not true. One of the main purposes behind the sec. 1 was to remove the question of citizenship outside the reach of the Congress. That was their purpose. They wanted to make sure that anyone who wanted to change the definition of citizenship to fit their own agenda had to amend the Constitution to do it. Their purpose was clearly stated on numerous occasions.

 

To those on the Right who want to eliminate "all birthright citizenship", I say....


Fine.....let's start with rightwing pundit Michelle Malkin. Deport her back to the Philippines.


((...and watch them contradict themselves.))

 

Because no violation of the Constitution is acceptable no matter who commits it and that two wrongs do not equate to a right.

- - - Updated - - -

Strange how the same people that whine about anchor babies fully support wet feet/dry feet when it comes to Cubans.

 

You mean progressives can ignore the Bill of Rights whenever it doesn't work in their favor and I'm wrong for wanting to kick illegal aliens out of the US because of a loophole?

 

Maybe. But isn't it also a violation of the Constitution that the federal government will not let Texas deport illegals before they have children?

 

With typical inaccuracy you seem unaware that Malkin and her family came to the US legally on an employee sponsored visa. Nothing indicates she is in the country illegally
or maybe facts only get in your way.

 

The Right has never attempted to amend the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens or tourists.

 

Except, those who oppose "birthright citizenship"...ALSO oppose it for the children of LEGAL immigratnts.

They don't make your distinction in their view of the 14th Amendment.


So....Michelle better pack her bags for Manila.

- - - Updated - - -

How often does the Right complain about something in the Constitution while simultaneously-

A. never trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment?

B. claiming they "love the Constitution"?

 

Wrong, Malkins family was in the country LEGALLY.... The illegal alien is in the country ILLEGALLY..... If the parents are illegal then that child citizenship is illegal (at least it should be)....

 

Who's whining? Did you read what I wrote?

I just pointed out that nobody can complain about a Republican violating the constitution, when our very President is violating it. Very simple concept.