Conservative Political Forum

General Category => The Constitution => Topic started by: Dave on December 13, 2017, 08:10:27 AM

Title: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Dave on December 13, 2017, 08:10:27 AM
Many comments regarding immigration often include the idea that the US has birthright citizenship. Some state that it was decided by the Supreme Court. Yet, I cannot find where this idea was established. Does anyone know the source?
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Solar on December 13, 2017, 08:23:36 AM
We pounded this one out back when Cruz first announced his candidacy, though I can't remember the particular threads, you could search our forum for something like "Cruz is a legal American" or something to that effect, or wait, and one of the members will pull it up.

But, I did a bit of research and found where the law was changed to accommodate WWII vets who had married foreigners and had lost their lives overseas.
The law didn't use to allow a single mother from a foreign land to transfer the deceased father's birthright onto his children, so the law was changed, whereby only one parent need be a citizen, thereby assuring his children could remain in the US as full blown citizens.

Cruz is a recipient of this law because his mother is an American citizen that just happened to marry a Cuban, regardless of Ted's birthplace.

By the way, welcome to the forum. :cool:
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Dave on December 13, 2017, 09:40:15 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2017, 08:23:36 AM
We pounded this one out back when Cruz first announced his candidacy, though I can't remember the particular threads, you could search our forum for something like "Cruz is a legal American" or something to that effect, or wait, and one of the members will pull it up.

But, I did a bit of research and found where the law was changed to accommodate WWII vets who had married foreigners and had lost their lives overseas.
The law didn't use to allow a single mother from a foreign land to transfer the deceased father's birthright onto his children, so the law was changed, whereby only one parent need be a citizen, thereby assuring his children could remain in the US as full blown citizens.

Cruz is a recipient of this law because his mother is an American citizen that just happened to marry a Cuban, regardless of Ted's birthplace.

By the way, welcome to the forum. :cool:
Thanks for the tip. I will check it out.
also  thanks for the welcome
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Solar on December 13, 2017, 10:44:27 AM
Quote from: Dave on December 13, 2017, 09:40:15 AM
Thanks for the tip. I will check it out.
also  thanks for the welcome
Found one of the threads.

Prove it!!!
Ignorance of Constitutional law is by it's very definition is a tool of the left, their very existence depends on ignorance.
I gave you the law that states quite clearly that a person born abroad to an American is afforded the same Rights.

U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×2. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/cruz-seeks-dismissal-of-presidential-eligibility-case/msg292886/#msg292886
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Dave on December 14, 2017, 08:08:32 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2017, 10:44:27 AM
Found one of the threads.

Prove it!!!
Ignorance of Constitutional law is by it's very definition is a tool of the left, their very existence depends on ignorance.
I gave you the law that states quite clearly that a person born abroad to an American is afforded the same Rights.

U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×2. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/cruz-seeks-dismissal-of-presidential-eligibility-case/msg292886/#msg292886

Thanks for the response.  I did check several threads including the long one on Ted Cruz. However, none of them addressed birthright citizenship of what is commonly called "anchor babies".
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: taxed on December 15, 2017, 12:05:55 AM
Quote from: Dave on December 14, 2017, 08:08:32 PM
Thanks for the response.  I did check several threads including the long one on Ted Cruz. However, none of them addressed birthright citizenship of what is commonly called "anchor babies".

Here's a better search tool for our forum than the default search...

https://conservativehardliner.com/search

Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Solar on December 15, 2017, 06:02:27 AM
Quote from: Dave on December 14, 2017, 08:08:32 PM
Thanks for the response.  I did check several threads including the long one on Ted Cruz. However, none of them addressed birthright citizenship of what is commonly called "anchor babies".
Yeah, we pounded that one out as well, and came to the conclusion, Congress was ignoring the laws on the books.
There is no such thing as anchor baby laws, only precedent where the laws have been totally ignored, allowing illegals to stay if they were born here, something the trump Administration is currently challenging.

Yes, there's a reason you can't find the "Anchor Baby" law, it does not exist.
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Dave on December 15, 2017, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2017, 06:02:27 AM
Yeah, we pounded that one out as well, and came to the conclusion, Congress was ignoring the laws on the books.
There is no such thing as anchor baby laws, only precedent where the laws have been totally ignored, allowing illegals to stay if they were born here, something the trump Administration is currently challenging.

Yes, there's a reason you can't find the "Anchor Baby" law, it does not exist.

If there is actually no law that establishes the concept, why the assumption by so many?  Also, my assumption is that since it is NOT law, then all the "anchor babies" are not legally citizens.  This should be clarified post haste especially since some of them are I would imagine, becoming of legal age.  It would cause them serious problems to correct this error in  their status.

Typical do-noting Congress.  To me this is so easy and simple, yet they will make it a long drawn out and complicated.
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Solar on December 15, 2017, 09:57:55 AM
Quote from: Dave on December 15, 2017, 08:34:35 AM
If there is actually no law that establishes the concept, why the assumption by so many?  Also, my assumption is that since it is NOT law, then all the "anchor babies" are not legally citizens.  This should be clarified post haste especially since some of them are I would imagine, becoming of legal age.  It would cause them serious problems to correct this error in  their status.

Typical do-noting Congress.  To me this is so easy and simple, yet they will make it a long drawn out and complicated.

This is another topic we hammered out, starting under the Bracero program of the 40s and corporate America became addicted to cheaper labor.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/search2/

There is a law regarding immigration, been on the books for decades, but Ca Dims ignored it back in the 70s and forced hospitals to cover anyone seeking treatment, including illegals.
This, of course, covered birthing, and by the 80s were arguing the 'Anchor Baby" bull shit, of course, the gop'E put on a great show pretending to fight, when in fact they wanted illegals as much as the Dims, for differing reasons.

Fact is, neither party has been interested in enforcing immigration law for decades. Trump, pleasingly enough, is changing all of that.
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Individual on October 28, 2018, 10:53:25 PM
Personally, I think both this and our immigration laws needs to be updated.
As for 'birthright citizenship', a child should be granted the same citizenship as its Mother. In the case of immigrants, both legal/illegal, should the Mother, for cause need be deported the child would remain with the Mother. Such births should be registered with/by the Embassy or Consulate of the Mothers Nationality. And perhaps that would need action by the UN for all Nations to agree with. A child born to a Mother who legally remained in the U.S. if at some time gained citizenship prior to the child becoming emancipated or an adult, would result in the child becoming a naturalized citizen, or if not the child could do so on their own once an adult, if they so wished to.
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: supsalemgr on October 29, 2018, 04:04:16 AM
Quote from: Individual on October 28, 2018, 10:53:25 PM
Personally, I think both this and our immigration laws needs to be updated.
As for 'birthright citizenship', a child should be granted the same citizenship as its Mother. In the case of immigrants, both legal/illegal, should the Mother, for cause need be deported the child would remain with the Mother. Such births should be registered with/by the Embassy or Consulate of the Mothers Nationality. And perhaps that would need action by the UN for all Nations to agree with. A child born to a Mother who legally remained in the U.S. if at some time gained citizenship prior to the child becoming emancipated or an adult, would result in the child becoming a naturalized citizen, or if not the child could do so on their own once an adult, if they so wished to.

Welcome to the forum.

I believe you are onto something with this idea. I was thinking no birthright citizenship unless one of the parents is an American citizen. Could this be done just by normal legislation?
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Individual on October 29, 2018, 06:06:41 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on October 29, 2018, 04:04:16 AM
Welcome to the forum.

I believe you are onto something with this idea. I was thinking no birthright citizenship unless one of the parents is an American citizen. Could this be done just by normal legislation?
A Constitutional amendment would, in my opinion, be the proper way to accomplish this as it would then supersede the 14th amendment and could not be reinterpreted by our Supreme Court to achieve a political agenda other than the letter of the law.
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: supsalemgr on October 29, 2018, 07:26:28 AM
Quote from: Individual on October 29, 2018, 06:06:41 AM
A Constitutional amendment would, in my opinion, be the proper way to accomplish this as it would then supersede the 14th amendment and could not be reinterpreted by our Supreme Court to achieve a political agenda other than the letter of the law.

Constitutional amendments are a steep hill by design.
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: ConservativeInCT on October 29, 2018, 07:40:14 AM
I have no problem with the migration of immigrants... when done right. A lot of the migrants coming in are hoping to get on welfare services and not work. If you come to the US to work or educate yourself and you are willing to instill the same ethic and work mentality as every other American trying to make a living then I have absolutely no problem with it. However, you can not just cross the border and expect to be given asylum. We need to know who is coming into the country and what their intentions are. Otherwise, there is just a huge influx of people who we don't know about coming here for god knows what.
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Individual on October 29, 2018, 08:12:46 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on October 29, 2018, 07:26:28 AM
Constitutional amendments are a steep hill by design.
Yes the last one, the 27th occurred in 1992. But without an amendment, the Supreme court would likely strike down any law passed a being unconstitutional and nullified as a result of the 14th amendment.
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Individual on October 29, 2018, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: ConservativeInCT on October 29, 2018, 07:40:14 AM
I have no problem with the migration of immigrants... when done right. A lot of the migrants coming in are hoping to get on welfare services and not work. If you come to the US to work or educate yourself and you are willing to instill the same ethic and work mentality as every other American trying to make a living then I have absolutely no problem with it. However, you can not just cross the border and expect to be given asylum. We need to know who is coming into the country and what their intentions are. Otherwise, there is just a huge influx of people who we don't know about coming here for god knows what.
That's another issue, and somewhat more complex that we should focus some attention on, and could probably be handled without a Constitutional amendment.
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Individual on October 30, 2018, 06:07:14 AM
I saw today that Trump has claimed he will sign an executive order banning birthright citizenship, so if he does I expect it will be fought in the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Solar on October 30, 2018, 07:27:37 AM
Quote from: Individual on October 30, 2018, 06:07:14 AM
I saw today that Trump has claimed he will sign an executive order banning birthright citizenship, so if he does I expect it will be fought in the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court.
Fifty years too late, but I'll take it. Thank you Trump!
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: supsalemgr on October 30, 2018, 08:04:20 AM
I agree this is a good idea. There is no sane reason a person be given citizenship unless at least one of the parents is a US citizen. My preference would be by legislation, not an EO as that can be too easily reversed.
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: tac on October 30, 2018, 08:29:53 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on October 30, 2018, 08:04:20 AM
I agree this is a good idea. There is no sane reason a person be given citizenship unless at least one of the parents is a US citizen. My preference would be by legislation, not an EO as that can be too easily reversed.

Maybe Trump can get the legislation passed during his next term!
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: supsalemgr on October 30, 2018, 08:55:54 AM
Quote from: tac on October 30, 2018, 08:29:53 AM
Maybe Trump can get the legislation passed during his next term!

It will be a challenge even if the GOP maintains a majority as this would 60 votes in the senate.
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Individual on October 30, 2018, 09:51:17 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on October 30, 2018, 08:04:20 AM
I agree this is a good idea. There is no sane reason a person be given citizenship unless at least one of the parents is a US citizen. My preference would be by legislation, not an EO as that can be too easily reversed.
This is something that should have been done in the early 20th century, when quotas were placed on immigration.
I maintain that this really needs to be done by amending our Constitution, as bot an Executive Order or act of Congress could easily be deemed unconstitutional by a Federal judge and/or the Supreme Court due to the wording of the 14th 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." Note that the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and the "Emergency Quota Act" was found necessary and passed in 1921. Hoover did, in 1932, pretty much shut down immigration due to the depression, and I think Trump might find that to be something he could do without violating the Constitution. In addition, it should be necessary for all Nations to be required to grant citizenship of births to their citizens who give birth outside their borders to assure a child has citizenship somewhere. My daughter was born in Asia, and my wife not a citizen of the country in which we live resulted in my daughter having a birth certificate  stating clearly that she is not a citizen where she was born.
Our immigration laws need to be modernized, clearly and concisely worded, and diligently enforced. First step is to get representatives in both Houses of Congress who are willing to make the needed changes to both laws and our Constitution which requires two thirds in both Houses for amendments and three fourths of the States to ratify.
Isn't it about time that we, the people, begin to make our representatives more subservient to those of us who provide them a living.
If we really want to start fixing our government, I would hope to see an amendment which would also repeal both the 16th and 17th amendments at the same time.
Title: Re: birthright citizenship?
Post by: Dave on March 25, 2019, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: Individual on October 30, 2018, 09:51:17 AM
This is something that should have been done in the early 20th century, when quotas were placed on immigration.
I maintain that this really needs to be done by amending our Constitution, as bot an Executive Order or act of Congress could easily be deemed unconstitutional by a Federal judge and/or the Supreme Court due to the wording of the 14th 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." Note that the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and the "Emergency Quota Act" was found necessary and passed in 1921. Hoover did, in 1932, pretty much shut down immigration due to the depression, and I think Trump might find that to be something he could do without violating the Constitution. In addition, it should be necessary for all Nations to be required to grant citizenship of births to their citizens who give birth outside their borders to assure a child has citizenship somewhere. My daughter was born in Asia, and my wife not a citizen of the country in which we live resulted in my daughter having a birth certificate  stating clearly that she is not a citizen where she was born.
Our immigration laws need to be modernized, clearly and concisely worded, and diligently enforced. First step is to get representatives in both Houses of Congress who are willing to make the needed changes to both laws and our Constitution which requires two thirds in both Houses for amendments and three fourths of the States to ratify.
Isn't it about time that we, the people, begin to make our representatives more subservient to those of us who provide them a living.
If we really want to start fixing our government, I would hope to see an amendment which would also repeal both the 16th and 17th amendments at the same time.
An historical note:

The anchor baby scam was invented 40 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the kids born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens.  Justice Brennan in his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

In 2003, Judge Richard Posner of the 7th circuit wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop "awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States."
The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was "to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves," adding that "Congress would not be flouting the Constitution" if it passed a law "to put an end to the nonsense.