Ending "birthright citizenship" would be costly headache, analyst says

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants automatic citizenship to most babies born in this country. Read more
First Prev
of 10
Next Last
Oh Please

Kansas City, MO

#1 Mar 5, 2012
Well the current program is bankrupting us.
Free is free

Rio Rancho, NM

#2 Mar 5, 2012
John Stark, the author, is wrong.

The 14th *does not* grant citizenship to anyone born on American soil. There are very specific exclusions to that and we've been getting it wrong. Among the excluded classes of person? According to The Congressional Record, the children of Aliens[sic] are among those denied birthright citizenship.

We don't need to change the law one bit. We need justices that will interpret according to the letter and stated intent of the law.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#3 Mar 5, 2012
Free is free wrote:
John Stark, the author, is wrong.
The 14th *does not* grant citizenship to anyone born on American soil. There are very specific exclusions to that and we've been getting it wrong. Among the excluded classes of person? According to The Congressional Record, the children of Aliens[sic] are among those denied birthright citizenship.
We don't need to change the law one bit. We need justices that will interpret according to the letter and stated intent of the law.
but until someone decides to push this issue, which would , one day or another, end up at the Supreme court, it will remain this broken way. Last i heard Texas reps tried and got voted down.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#4 Mar 5, 2012
Free is free wrote:
John Stark, the author, is wrong.
The 14th *does not* grant citizenship to anyone born on American soil. There are very specific exclusions to that and we've been getting it wrong. Among the excluded classes of person? According to The Congressional Record, the children of Aliens[sic] are among those denied birthright citizenship.
We don't need to change the law one bit. We need justices that will interpret according to the letter and stated intent of the law.
that's strange, the word "alien" doesn't even appear in the amendment. try reading it and then read all of the congressional record.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#5 Mar 5, 2012
Most first world countries ended birthright citizenship long ago so don't tell us it can't be done.

“Work hard at work worth doing.”

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#6 Mar 6, 2012
Speeders Kill Kids wrote:
Most first world countries ended birthright citizenship long ago so don't tell us it can't be done.
True, so why is this country still allowing this backeard process to be continued? This is a major impetus for illegal women who want to have the governmennt serve as their babies' daddy...it is disgusting and only allows them to use their own kids as pawns, shields and as a means to tap into our free social services, which, I might add, they never contributed a dime. Some abuse their bodies as long as they can, to make a living off their own kids. Despicable. I doubt eliminating this would cost more than what these kids cost the taxpayers to feed, house, support, educate, medicate and incarcerate them. Nope, I don't buy that excuse.

“Work hard at work worth doing.”

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#7 Mar 6, 2012
Ugh, should have been backward.

“The "entitled" =communist.”

Since: May 10

MY MONEY, come take it.

#8 Mar 6, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>that's strange, the word "alien" doesn't even appear in the amendment. try reading it and then read all of the congressional record.
The author of the Amendment stated that the Amendment did not apply to diplomats or aliens. Get off the bias websites and go read it in the USC Codes....This has been hashed and rehashed here. Let's do our homework

Since: Apr 10

Houston, TX

#9 Mar 6, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>that's strange, the word "alien" doesn't even appear in the amendment. try reading it and then read all of the congressional record.
Even Indians born here were not US citizens until 1924.

"The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to America's indigenous peoples, called "Indians" in this Act.(The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excludes certain indigenous peoples.) The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizensh...

“Conservatism is a Disease.”

Since: Nov 11

Lake Los Angeles, CA

#10 Mar 6, 2012
Oh Please wrote:
Well the current program is bankrupting us.
I forgot the hardship that White Americans like you have to live through living in a country controlled by White Americans - your plight humbles me! LOL

“Conservatism is a Disease.”

Since: Nov 11

Lake Los Angeles, CA

#11 Mar 6, 2012
spytheweb wrote:
<quoted text>
Even Indians born here were not US citizens until 1924.
"The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to America's indigenous peoples, called "Indians" in this Act.(The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excludes certain indigenous peoples.) The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizensh...
Are you saying that we should take steps back to appease your witch hunting agenda? Lets go further, lets take citizenship away from Blacks like you since you're more than happy to take citizenship away from so called anchor babies.

Yea, it doesn't sound so good now does it.

“Conservatism is a Disease.”

Since: Nov 11

Lake Los Angeles, CA

#12 Mar 6, 2012
Jack from Bedias wrote:
<quoted text>The author of the Amendment stated that the Amendment did not apply to diplomats or aliens. Get off the bias websites and go read it in the USC Codes....This has been hashed and rehashed here. Let's do our homework
Not so fast Jack.

The problem with Senator Jacob Howard’s statement about the 14th Amendment citizenship clause not being applicable to “persons born in the United States who are aliens.” The problem with this statement he would also excluded United States citizenship to those who were born here in America to those permanent resident alien parents who were here legally. Thirty two years later, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) stated the following:

The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

Furthermore, back in 1868 the term alien is different from the term used today. In 1868 there were no immigration laws prohibiting people who wanted to enter the United States and as such there was no such thing as an “illegal alien.” Back in 1868, the term alien was a broad term for anyone who was in the United States temporarily or permanent but was not a naturalized citizen.

“Conservatism is a Disease.”

Since: Nov 11

Lake Los Angeles, CA

#13 Mar 6, 2012
teddyr4me wrote:
<quoted text>True, so why is this country still allowing this backeard process to be continued? This is a major impetus for illegal women who want to have the governmennt serve as their babies' daddy...it is disgusting and only allows them to use their own kids as pawns, shields and as a means to tap into our free social services, which, I might add, they never contributed a dime. Some abuse their bodies as long as they can, to make a living off their own kids. Despicable. I doubt eliminating this would cost more than what these kids cost the taxpayers to feed, house, support, educate, medicate and incarcerate them. Nope, I don't buy that excuse.
It was not a problem when white non-citizens were entering the USA by the droves prior to Ellis Island and dropping anchor babies but you want to make it a serious crime when a person of color does it today.

Very hypocritical and I'm sure you'll use the, "It was ok then but not today philosophy" and to an extent I can understand that.

Anyways, you'll always have this problem until you build a berlin type wall at the southern border and even then you'll have to spend billions maintaining & defending it.

Either way, you're going to spend money.

G l o r i A

Phoenix, AZ

#14 Mar 6, 2012
The Notorious Rico wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so fast Jack.
The problem with Senator Jacob Howard’s statement about the 14th Amendment citizenship clause not being applicable to “persons born in the United States who are aliens.” The problem with this statement he would also excluded United States citizenship to those who were born here in America to those permanent resident alien parents who were here legally. Thirty two years later, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) stated the following:
The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
Furthermore, back in 1868 the term alien is different from the term used today. In 1868 there were no immigration laws prohibiting people who wanted to enter the United States and as such there was no such thing as an “illegal alien.” Back in 1868, the term alien was a broad term for anyone who was in the United States temporarily or permanent but was not a naturalized citizen.
No obscene language? No toilet humor? No reference to the female genetilia? No second grade spelling and grammar?

Who did you steal this article from, Rico?

“The "entitled" =communist.”

Since: May 10

MY MONEY, come take it.

#15 Mar 6, 2012
The Notorious Rico wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so fast Jack.
The problem with Senator Jacob Howard’s statement about the 14th Amendment citizenship clause not being applicable to “persons born in the United States who are aliens.” The problem with this statement he would also excluded United States citizenship to those who were born here in America to those permanent resident alien parents who were here legally. Thirty two years later, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) stated the following:
The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
Furthermore, back in 1868 the term alien is different from the term used today. In 1868 there were no immigration laws prohibiting people who wanted to enter the United States and as such there was no such thing as an “illegal alien.” Back in 1868, the term alien was a broad term for anyone who was in the United States temporarily or permanent but was not a naturalized citizen.
cont.

“Y'all smell that sawdust?”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#16 Mar 6, 2012
The Notorious Rico wrote:
<quoted text>
It was not a problem when white non-citizens were entering the USA by the droves prior to Ellis Island and dropping anchor babies but you want to make it a serious crime when a person of color does it today.
Very hypocritical and I'm sure you'll use the, "It was ok then but not today philosophy" and to an extent I can understand that.
Anyways, you'll always have this problem until you build a berlin type wall at the southern border and even then you'll have to spend billions maintaining & defending it.
Either way, you're going to spend money.
Prior to Ellis Island, there was no immigration laws, no anchor babies.
Ya might try a more factual route next time.

“The "entitled" =communist.”

Since: May 10

MY MONEY, come take it.

#17 Mar 6, 2012
cont. I have accepted Howards "sidebar" comment for what it is. It's the same as the "concurring opinion" by the justice in Phyler. Phyler was for equal rights and nothing more.....The situation today is completely different from all those cases and in my opinion the present-day unlawful practice of pregnant women sneaking across the border, with intent to circumvent the law has not been addressed in any court.
Free is free

Rio Rancho, NM

#18 Mar 6, 2012
barry wrote:
<quoted text>that's strange, the word "alien" doesn't even appear in the amendment. try reading it and then read all of the congressional record.
It's in the debate, documented in The Congressional Record. Jacob Howard specifically stated that the intent was not to provide birthright citizenship to the children of Aliens. I suggest you go reread it if you missed that.

“Conservatism is a Disease.”

Since: Nov 11

Lake Los Angeles, CA

#19 Mar 6, 2012
G l o r i A wrote:
<quoted text>
No obscene language? No toilet humor? No reference to the female genetilia? No second grade spelling and grammar?
Who did you steal this article from, Rico?
Troll.

“Conservatism is a Disease.”

Since: Nov 11

Lake Los Angeles, CA

#20 Mar 6, 2012
Confederate Wood Worker wrote:
<quoted text>
Prior to Ellis Island, there was no immigration laws, no anchor babies.
Ya might try a more factual route next time.
You might want to read what you're replying to. I did say in my comment:

"I'm sure you'll use the, "It was ok then but not today philosophy" and to an extent I can understand that."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pasco Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Judge fines Washington florist over same-sex we... 14 hr Reverend Alan 13
Review: Walstads Country Meat (Jun '13) Mar 24 family working 5
Cops license to commit murder on our citizens Mar 19 WA Voter 3
It might be payback for the robocops Mar 13 America is tired 12
News Judge rules against florist who didn't want to ... Mar 13 TomInElPaso 55
Review: Taxes By Tracie (Feb '10) Mar 4 ex customer 19
News Fewer animals in our shelters Feb '15 squeezers 2
Pasco Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Pasco People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]