End Birthright Citizenship

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/~c111ZwsqDY::

Again stealing text from NumbersUSA until I can write my own synopsis.

Birthright Citizenship is the practice of offering automatic citizenship to children born in the United States. Under current federal law, all children born in the U.S. receive automatic citizenship, but this practice had created a magnet for foreign nationals who want their children to have citizenship in the United States.

Traditionally, nations that offer Birthright Citizenship do so to increase its own population. Most developed nations have ended the practice of Birthright Citizenship or have never offered it in the first place. The United States is the most populated nation to still offer Birthright Citizenship

A bill to repeal Birthright Citizenship has been offered in the House of Representatives by former Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal. After Rep. Deal’s resignation to run for governor, the bill’s sponsorship was taken over by California Congressman Gary Miller.

The Immigration and Nationality Act defines Birthright Citizenship in the United States, but it’s also a clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has never interpreted the Birthright Citizenship clause as it applies to illegal aliens – only legal immigrants.

13 thoughts on “End Birthright Citizenship

      1. The periods were there just to make you look.
        They were pages that I had reposted after fixing the page.
        I will be going through and pulling those dotted comments soon. I just need to get all of the affected pages fixed first.

  1. We would not even have to worry about birthright if the law makers and border folks did a better job of keeping the trash out.

    I propose that we revoke the citizenship of anyone that was born in the US, where at least one of the parents was not a US citizen at the time of birth.

    In other words to many ANCHORS are dragging out economic boat to the bottom of the sea.

  2. "I propose that we revoke the citizenship of anyone that was born in the US, where at least one of the parents was not a US citizen at the time of birth. "

    I feel that would be too extreme. My oldest son's father is from India, we were married and he lives here legally. Under your suggestion my son would have no country or citizenship. I am a natural born citizen of the USA and so is my son and I am trying real hard to not take that statement personally and get angry. My son is not an ANCHOR for anyone to stay here.

    It would be more reasonable to request that if BOTH parents are ILLEGAL then the child doesn't get citizenship. If one parent is legal or a citizen (the other illegal) then that parent has legal custody/parental rights and the child is granted citizenship and the ILLEGAL parent still has no guarantee that they will get to stay here.

    1. I think (and oregcan will correct if I am wrong) that your situation would be fine as mom (you) is a citizen.
      I am wanting to see at least one parent being a citizen in order to establish citizenship for any children born on American soil.
      Our country is populated to the point where we no longer need to add more people. At some point we will move to require that both parents be citizens to bestow citizenship on our children.

      1. "I propose that we revoke the citizenship of anyone that was born in the US, where at least one of the parents was not a US citizen at the time of birth. "

        It was this statement that got my attention. My ex is not a citizen, but has permanent residency. His proposal would make my son not a citizen.

        1. I wrote "I propose that we revoke the citizenship of anyone that was born in the U.S., where AT LEAST ONE OF THE PARENTS IS NOT A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF BIRTH"

          Let me be as clear as possible here. ONE of the birth parents must be a U.S. Citizen at the time of birth for the child to have citizenship. If both parents are citizens then the child has citizenship. If neither of the parents have citizenship then the child does not have citizenship. Many people from the middle east fly to the US to give birth in expensive hospital suites so their child has citizenship, then they fly back to wherever. The mexicans and others from the south illegally cross the border to give birth(s) and then attempt to use those anchors as a legal means to stay. That should end.

          As for your case, I assume that you were a US citizen at the time of birth thus your child would have citizenship if my proposal were in fact law. Your husband does not and is subject to deportation unless he has taken steps for permanent residency or citizenship.

          1. The 14th needs to be changed so that the incentive to come here for a birth and automatic citizenship has got to stop. Arizona and several other states are moving to enact their own laws and of course their Senators & Representatives will be pushing the same legislation on the US end.

            I firmly believe that if the US does not close its borders to invaders from outside our borders we as a nation will cease to exist.

          2. "AT LEAST ONE OF THE PARENTS IS NOT A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF BIRTH"

            My ex is not a citizen BUT WAS LEGAL.. he had (and still does) permanent residency. This statement would still make my son not a citizen. I am a natural born citizen, but your statement would still make my son not a citizen because his father is not a CITIZEN, even though he is legal. Your proposal was not clear in stating that if one parent is a citizen the child becomes one. It states if one parent is not a citizen then the child is not, there is nothing there about both parents

            Yes if both parents are ILLEGAL then their child is not an automatic citizen

            If one is a citizen and the other is ILLEGAL then the ILLEGAL one doesn't get the ability to use the child as an anchor, become legal or leave.

            As your example of rich people flying here and birthing their children here so they could have dual citizenship then going back, there should be a clause that states they need to be LIVING here legally for an extended amount of time before the birth and after the birth, maybe the child cannot go out of the country until they are at least 10 or 12 and if they do, they lose their citizenship.

            Don't get me wrong, I too think there should be something done, but do not toss the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

            1. You failed to add a key word in my comment…..WHERE……AT LEAST ONE OF THE PARENTS IS NOT A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF BIRTH(my typo on birth)

              I mean to imply that at least ONE of the birth parents must be a US citizen for the child to have US citizenship

              1. "where AT LEAST ONE OF THE PARENTS IS NOT A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF BIRTH"

                or

                "AT LEAST ONE OF THE PARENTS IS NOT A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF BIRTH" ( I used this because you put it all in caps in the original post )

                means the same… you are singling out ONE parent. If ONE parent is not a citizen then the child doesn't have the right to be a citizen. You mention nothing about the legal status of the non-citizen or whether the other parent is a citizen or not.

  3. Here is a news flash about our friends to the south last weekend they murdered 18 people in their never ending battle among the cartels, this week they murdered an ICE agent and wounded another that were attached to the Embassy, then yesterday they dropped 4 people from a 600 foot high bridge to the highway below in Aculpoco(sp) that were taped hand and foot with their heads also taped.

    The cartel have also taken to skinning their victims while they are alive. Such fine neighbors, we should open the gates even wider, perhap Obama would like to have them to the White House for a state dinner at taxpayer expense.

Leave a Reply