Author Topic: birthright citizenship?  (Read 1240 times)

Offline Dave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
birthright citizenship?
« 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?

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 59410
  • Gender: Male
Re: birthright citizenship?
« Reply #1 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:
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Dave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: birthright citizenship?
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2017, 09:40:15 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

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 59410
  • Gender: Male
Re: birthright citizenship?
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2017, 10:44:27 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
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Dave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: birthright citizenship?
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2017, 08:08:32 PM »
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".

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21762
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: birthright citizenship?
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2017, 12:05:55 AM »
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


Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 59410
  • Gender: Male
Re: birthright citizenship?
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2017, 06:02:27 AM »
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.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Dave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: birthright citizenship?
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2017, 08:34:35 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.

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 59410
  • Gender: Male
Re: birthright citizenship?
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2017, 09:57:55 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.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

 

Powered by EzPortal