Sublog
Kind of a broad generalization there. My relatives had babies in this country that became Americans. They are now all working, taxpaying Americans. Some of them even vote Republican.

So your relatives are criminals?

Did you relatives pay the hospital bill or let the taxpayers pick up the tab?

Wow, and you are proud of your relatives?

Even those of you who are screaming at Bush know he was good for two superb Supreme Court appointments

Janos Hunyadi on November 14, 2006 at 12:28 AM

Excuse me, but wasn’t Bush forced to change one of those nominations because his nominee was terrible? IMHO, Bush needs to be steered yet again, but this time on the Illegal Alien Amnesty issue.

Kind of a broad generalization there. My relatives had babies in this country that became Americans. They are now all working, taxpaying Americans. Some of them even vote Republican.

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 5:35 PM

Did they also march on US soil while waving the flag of the nation they came from? Did they demand that America become bilingual? Did they declare parts of the United States belonged to the country of their origin?

Apples, and oranges.

Even those of you who are screaming at Bush know he was good for two superb Supreme Court appointments

Here’s another good one on the subject…Birthright

Three times a charm;-)

voiceofreason on November 13, 2006 at 10:05 PM

Here’s another good one on the subject…

Citizenship Clause

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.

The Citizenship Clause did not originate with John Bingham, but instead was inserted while the bill was under consideration in the Senate by Sen. Jacob Howard. It was intended to establish who is, and who isn’t, a citizen of the United States. The clause itself is straightforward and came with ample documentary construction over how “subject to the jurisdiction” was to be construed. Sen. Howard introduced the clause this way:

[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

You can find the page here

It’s clear that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US so they should not be considered citizens. If a family from abroad comes to the U.S. on vacation and the wife happens to give birth while here in this country, that doesn’t make that baby a U.S. citizen. Thus children of illegal aliens should not be considered U.S. citizens. From what I have seen, there is no need to change the Constitution; rather we need to interpret correctly.

We have money here…so, we’re fair game for anyone with enough of a sob-story to come up and, harp-seal-like, flash their watery eyes at us and look all vulnerable.

…what saps they must think we are…what saps, indeed, we must be.

Emigration isn’t a birthright…not into my country, it isn’t.

By the way, one of the largest sources of money for Mexico, is anchor babies and illegals sending back most of the money they earn here, to spend there.

americanpundit on November 13, 2006 at 4:38 PM

And you can watch the dollars tick away in real time here!

This story provides another prime reason for why the Anchor Baby Law should be revoked.

The 14th Amendment, you mean?

The idea that people who have babies in our country are decent, America loving, well meaning people is ridiculous on its face.

Kind of a broad generalization there. My relatives had babies in this country that became Americans. They are now all working, taxpaying Americans. Some of them even vote Republican.

This story provides another prime reason for why the Anchor Baby Law should be revoked. The idea that people who have babies in our country are decent, America loving, well meaning people is ridiculous on its face. Anyone who has any respect for America could avail themselves of the many other means to become US citizens and stop breaking our laws, but they don’t.

I hope you don’t get the impression that I was referring to you when I used the term “asinine” in my last comment. Good use of humor to make a valid point with “oranges” question.

I lost track of that about 20 posts ago. Comments are SOO hard to follow. I think a few people got the point(s) I was making. Sarcasm is hard to follow without smiley’s, I forget that people don’t know my style here ;) I do quite well with it in other forums.

I hope you don’t get the impression that I was referring to you when I used the term “asinine” in my last comment. Good use of humor to make a valid point with “oranges” question.