• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Birthright Citizenship

Jerome Corsi jumps aboard

Gifford quoted Zhou as saying the advantages to Chinese citizens of obtaining for their newborn babies U.S. citizenship include access to a free U.S. public education and reduced college costs that come with being an American citizen.

"For lots of Chinese people now, $15,000 is very affordable," Zhou told NPR. "And it`s still at least four times more expensive for a foreign student to study at an American university than it is for an American student. With a U.S. passport, there are no barriers for study or for work."

Zhou told NPR that his firm has helped as many as 600 mothers give birth in the U.S. in the past five years, and that some Chinese mothers take advantage of birth tourism in the U.S. to avoid China`s strict one-child law, which evidently does not apply if a child is born to Chinese outside China
Click to expand...

OMG!!!! 600 babies in 5 years!!!! that's like almost 100 bibies a year! {/snark}

Personally, I have no problem with a couple hundred or even a couple thousand new citizens a year that will grow up to be wealthy college graduates.
 
And of course, the clown that wants voting rights restricted to property owners is allso calling for the repeal of the 14th amendment.

"I want the 14th Amendment repealed."
Click to expand...

but since he is a tea party wackjob, we don't have to take him seriously . . . Do we?
 
This is just an informational post.

An interesting article on the connection between immigration reform groups like FAIR and the white supremacist/ nationalist who founded the organization.

These are the people behind the push to the change to the 14th amendment.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
OMG!!!! 600 babies in 5 years!!!! that's like almost 100 bibies a year! {/snark}

Personally, I have no problem with a couple hundred or even a couple thousand new citizens a year that will grow up to be wealthy college graduates.
Click to expand...

I heard the report on Chinese women coming to the U.S. to give birth too.

They mentioned that the trips were worth it because they could buy designer shoes here in the U.S. for 1/4 of what it cost them in China. I forget what the figure was, but the woman interviewed dropped what to me is a LOT of money on her birth-vacation.

So I wonder what the net effect on our economy is?

Also, as I mentioned before, the China issue is mostly to blame on their draconian reproduction laws. For many of them, it's not about getting a free or less expensive education for the kid. It's about having a second kid, or a kid of the "correct" gender.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I heard the report on Chinese women coming to the U.S. to give birth too.

They mentioned that the trips were worth it because they could buy designer shoes here in the U.S. for 1/4 of what it cost them in China. I forget what the figure was, but the woman interviewed dropped what to me is a LOT of money on her birth-vacation.

So I wonder what the net effect on our economy is?

Also, as I mentioned before, the China issue is mostly to blame on their draconian reproduction laws. For many of them, it's not about getting a free or less expensive education for the kid. It's about having a second kid, or a kid of the "correct" gender.
Click to expand...

Partially, though, this is just another example of the Chinese mindset. They think in terms of several generations from now, so it's not unrealistic that they'd think as little as 18 years ahead to better access to better education at a better price. To the Chinese, education is the key to everything.
 
A few more details are starting to emerge on the upcoming attack on the 14th amendment.

Sen. Russell Pearce and numerous out-of-state allies plan to unveil his birthright citizenship bill during the first week of January in Washington, D.C. The model legislation will serve as a template for lawmakers in 14 states, including Arizona, who hope to force a U.S. Supreme Court case that would challenge the longstanding interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.
Click to expand...

This effort is being coordinated by a legislature from Pennsylvania named Daryl Metcalfe who has formed an organization known as State Legislators for Legal Immigration.
 
it will fail miserably like all "14th amendment" bills. STATES cannot override the US CONSTITUTION with BILLS done at the state level. And 200 years of SUPREME Court CASES have CLEARLY deal with the issue of the 14th Amendment, with the landmark US vs Wong Kim Ark as the defining exactly what the 14th Amendment meant.

ARE THESE CONGRESS PEOPLE THAT IGNORANT ON HOW TO DEAL WITH AMENDMENTS??

Seriously? this is learned in 4th GRADE US HISORY CLASS.

18th amendment everyone? what happened to it? Oh yeah, the 21st was passed to counter it.


To CHANGE an AMENDMENT, YOU have to convene a Constitutional congress and propose An AMENDMENT then have 2/3rds of the STATES RATIFY.

Holy, do we really need to start making sure that our congress persons are freaking EDUCATED about how Amendments are done to our Constitution?
 
Last edited:
Arus808 said:
...

To CHANGE an AMENDMENT, YOU have to convene a Constitutional congress and propose An AMENDMENT then have 2/3rds of the STATES RATIFY.

Holy, do we really need to start making sure that our congress persons are freaking EDUCATED about how Amendments are done to our Constitution?
Click to expand...


Speaking of being educated about amending the constitution:

"Constitutional congress" is a term that appears where?

Amendments take effect after 2/3 vote in both houses of congress and then being approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures ...

OR a constitutional convention is convened (which has never happened since the constitution was first put into effect) and the resulting newly amended constitution is approved by 3/4 of the states OR 3/4 of the states convene constitutional conventions, etc.
 
Has anyone noticed thatthere has been an increase in eforts to get tea party types into state legislatures?
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Has anyone noticed thatthere has been an increase in eforts to get tea party types into state legislatures?
Click to expand...


Right-wingers are very organized at building from the bottom-up. The 2010 census redistricting will happen next year, and much is at stake.
 
Arus808 said:
it will fail miserably like all "14th amendment" bills. STATES cannot override the US CONSTITUTION with BILLS done at the state level. And 200 years of SUPREME Court CASES have CLEARLY deal with the issue of the 14th Amendment, with the landmark US vs Wong Kim Ark as the defining exactly what the 14th Amendment meant.

ARE THESE CONGRESS PEOPLE THAT IGNORANT ON HOW TO DEAL WITH AMENDMENTS??

Seriously? this is learned in 4th GRADE US HISORY CLASS.

18th amendment everyone? what happened to it? Oh yeah, the 21st was passed to counter it.


To CHANGE an AMENDMENT, YOU have to convene a Constitutional congress and propose An AMENDMENT then have 2/3rds of the STATES RATIFY.

Holy, do we really need to start making sure that our congress persons are freaking EDUCATED about how Amendments are done to our Constitution?
Click to expand...

In fairness, it would be theoretically possible for a court challenge--inspired by a state law designed to make such a challenge--to result in a landmark decision that would drastically change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment the way they want.

But that's not going to happen.

Even Arizona's law that would rescind state-issued business licenses to companies that hire illegals isn't sailing through without a serious preemption challenge. (The fed says the law is basically an attempt at enforcing federal immigration laws--something that is preempted by Congress' authority to establish a uniform national policy.)
 
OK, I'm going to throw this out there for critique.

The 14th amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . .

A child is a person regardless of who the parent is.

All persons in the Sovereign Territory of the United States are under the jurisdiction of the United States.

All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

As far as I am concerned, that 's as simple as it gets.

However, as additional argument,

A child born in this country is not an immigrant.

It is not illegal to be born.

Those last two points are moot, given the first set, but any legal scholars out there case to comment?
 
Pearce intends to unveil his plan Wednesday, Jan 5.

Today, one of the prominent scholars on the 14th amendment wrote the following opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal

This effort to rewrite U.S. citizenship law from state to state is unconstitutional—and curious. Opponents of illegal immigration cannot claim to champion the rule of law and then, in the same breath, propose policies that violate our Constitution.
Click to expand...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576045380685742092.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

worth a read.
 
The ACLU Wieghs in

WASHINGTON - January 5 - The American Civil Liberties Union today called on state lawmakers to reject proposed legislation intended to deny Americans the fundamental protections of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ACLU made the call after a group of state legislators announced they will introduce bills in their state legislatures that would do just that by requiring states to deny standard birth certificates to many U.S. citizen babies born in the U.S. to immigrant parents. The proposed legislation would also require all people in the U.S., whether citizens or not, to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby. Currently, there is no such requirement. The proposed legislation directly contradicts the long-standing 14th Amendment guarantee that all people born in the U.S. and under its jurisdiction are citizens of the U.S. and the state in which they reside and subject to equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...
 
OK, here is what they plan:

Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh and Arizona state Sen. Ron Gould, both Republicans, said they plan to introduce legislation in the next few weeks that would define what it means to be an Arizona citizen.

That definition would say that an Arizona citizen must be a U.S. citizen, who would be defined as someone who is born in the United States and has at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. Naturalized U.S. citizens also would be considered Arizona citizens.



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...-lawmakers-introduced05-ON.html#ixzz1ABcwXdY7
Click to expand...

ETA:

It seems that the Arizona Republicans are looking to the Dred Scott decision for their legal argument.
 
Last edited:
Alferd_Packer said:
OK, here is what they plan:



ETA:

It seems that the Arizona Republicans are looking to the Dred Scott decision for their legal argument.
Click to expand...



then they are idiots and those who voted for those morons should take a good look at the next time they try to re-elect those bafoons

Dredd Scott was trumped by Wong Kim Ark.
 
Arus808 said:
then they are idiots and those who voted for those morons should take a good look at the next time they try to re-elect those bafoons

Dredd Scott was trumped by Wong Kim Ark.
Click to expand...

Actually Dred Scot was trumped by the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment
 
It this article referring to the bill you linked to? http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/05/legislators.illegal.immigration/index.html?hpt=T2

Specifically, the one-page bill interprets the authors' view of the first line of the amendment: "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."
In the bill, "jurisdiction" of the United States is taken to mean a child of at least one parent who owes "no allegiance" to any other country, or a child without citizenship or nationality in another country. This would exclude children of parents who immigrated illegally, presumably because they may owe allegiance to their home country, or their children may hold another country's nationality.
Click to expand...

Everyone in the USA is subject to the jurisdiction (legal authority) of the USA, whether they are here legally or not; correct? I would assume that diplomats are the only exception.

Changing the way words are defined changes the 14th amendment. The Constitution describes how it is to be changed, and this is not the right way. This bill appears to be a sham.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom