12 Responses to “House Republicans Go After Birthright Citizenship”

1. Kevin J Lankford
   April 30th, 2015 @ 6:26 am

   There is no such thing as birth right citizenship.The 14h amendment states two separate qualification for citizenship. First being born in the U.S. then being under the “jurisdiction” of the U.S.. Researching the congressional debates of the i4th amendment at the time of its ratification shows clearly that it is the country of origin and citizenship that is meant by “jurisdiction”. In other words a child is what the parents are. Nothing new was added.

   It is those promoting the invasion of this country, intentionally filling it with illegal immigrants, using the peoples ignorance of their own language to further their agenda.

2. Andrew Morris
   April 30th, 2015 @ 8:29 am

   The problem with Lankford’s assessment is that it’s wrong. The right-wing on SCOTUS has said repeatedly that the Constitution must be interpreted strictly, according to the words used. And unless the United States is saying that it doesn’t have jurisdiction about people within its borders, then you are stuck with birthright citizenship.

3. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   April 30th, 2015 @ 11:29 am

   it is a matter of interpretation of the Constitution. The purpose of the drafters of the constitution was to give citizenship to slaves and their children, not to create birthright tourism and encourage illegal immigration. This is a legitimate issue and it is time for this issue to be adjudicated

4. Betsy Ross
   April 30th, 2015 @ 12:04 pm

   Can you sue?

5. Andrew Morris
   April 30th, 2015 @ 12:08 pm

   No, it isn’t a matter of interpretation of the Constitution. If the words are clear, no further interpretation is needed. And they are perfectly clear. The fact that it may not be what the drafters intended is irrelevant. The Scalia/Alito/Roberts/Thomas faction has always been adamant about that. They can’t decently switch their position now just because it’s become politically awkward. The proper way to try and change this is to amend the Constitution. And good luck with that.

6. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   April 30th, 2015 @ 12:19 pm

   sue who?

7. Sandy Beach
   April 30th, 2015 @ 1:20 pm

   Hasn’t this issue been adjudicated already?

   United States v. Wong Kim Ark
   United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

   Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government’s refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.
   [more at the link]
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

   It is a famous case. Apparently, from the link, “Some Republicans” haven’t heard of it?

8. Kevin J Lankford
   April 30th, 2015 @ 1:24 pm

   @ no.5 andrew;

   The words are clear. It is their meaning that has been thwarted. The phrase “All persons born or naturalize in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside”, is nothing more than a reiteration of what was already understood. It adds no new class of citizen other than to acknowledge that the freed slaves ancestors, having been removed from their homeland (by force) were now to be considered subjects of the United States, meaning subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore citizens of the United States. Far be it for the government of the United States to claim jurisdiction over the citizenship of the citizens of foreign nations merely because of their misfortune of birth on our soil, or to grant citizenship for same. As I have stated many times, a child is what the parents are. Place of birth can not effect a persons heritage, but it can compromise their loyalties.

   Many do equate “jurisdiction” with meaning solely subject to the laws and penalties of the country of question, and of course one must abide by the laws of the land, but that has nothing to do with the country presiding over ones citizenship. If it were so our citizenship would morph with every border we cross.

   Birthright citizenship is a lie, and only the ignorant, or the beneficiaries of it advocate for it.

9. Freedomtrain...
   April 30th, 2015 @ 2:11 pm

   Rep. King is right!

   I believe that we already have a “rainbow” coalition…but, what Menendez doesn’t grasp is that the previous immigrants did this the (LEGAL) way…not illegally, to just open “pandoras’ box” to get what they want!

   This is the same DNA that got us into this mess in the first place!

10. Lorene B
    April 30th, 2015 @ 2:14 pm

    It make no difference where a child is born, he is a citizen of the country of his parents.

    My son-un-law was born in Germany to two adult US citizens, he is a US citizen. But because he was not born in the US, he cannot be president of the US.

    This sly scheme of birth-right citizenship needs to be burned.

11. Freedomtrain...
    April 30th, 2015 @ 2:15 pm

    Andrew: the reason we don’t dare to amend the Constitution is due to lefty babble to pretend to correct problems…

    But we don’t have Constitutional problems in the Constitution…we have problems with those lefty interpreters, who love to pervert honest truth, to suit their warped thinking!

12. Hammon Pierce
    April 30th, 2015 @ 4:05 pm

    Sandy Beach is correct that this issue has already been adjudicated.

    They can’t change the law without passing an amendment which would require 2/3rds of the senate to agree in addition to 2/3rds of the states.

Leave a Reply