Bill Would Block Automatic Citizenship

[The Straight Story]

Bill Would Block Automatic Citizenship

Northern California Congressman Dan Lungren is backing a controversial bill that could have a dramatic impact on U.S. citizenship laws. The Folsom Republican says he wants to block automatic citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrant mothers on U.S. soil.

"If citizenship is to have true meaning, someone with no allegiance to the United States should not be able to lay claim to it on behalf of their offspring," Lungren said in a written statement.

Lungren is one of 90 Republicans who've signed on to HR 1940, legislation that seeks to end automatic citizenship for newborns of illegal immigrants.

He says it's a debate worth having, considering an estimated 400,000 babies are born in the United States every year to illegal immigrant parents. Those babies receive automatic U.S. citizenship rights.

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=32595

[wuushew]

1. This will never pass and never hold up in court

I am not worried

[FreakinDJ]

11. I agree

Senseless banging of the Drum

[bunkerbuster1]

2. Idiot. Publicity whore. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL, you dummy!

This law, if it were passed, would have less than a snowball's chance in hell of passing judicial muster, even with the SCOTUS as currently configured.

[Mountainman]

3. One little problem

United States Constitution


Amendment XIV

Section 1. 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[The Straight Story]

5. Details...who needs em

:)

[Kutjara]

7. Stop bringing up that goddamn piece of paper!

We both know it doesn't apply to Republicans!

[sailor65]

8. Here's the sticking point

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

It's often overlooked by those who support "Anchor Babies," but it remains the core of the argument. Persons not accused of a crime, as obviously newborn babies are not, are widely regarded as being under the jurisdiction of their home government. There will be more and more challenges based on this section in the future.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

10. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

has to been something other than just being here, otherwise it's a redundant phrase.

How has this been explained in the past?

[Mountainman]

12. Do you understand English?

in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

Thereof refers to the United States!

The intent is that no state can make a law restricting the rights of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Persons born in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and no state can make a law restricting their rights.

If you were born in California, New York cannot take away your rights under the 14th Amendment.

[sailor65]

14. Yes I do

but here's a refresher for you:

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means persons who are both "Born in the US" AND "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" become citizens. It does not say that those born in the US ARE subject to the jurisdiction thereof by default.

It is a condition, not a result.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. If they're born in the U.S., their home government is the U.S.

This ain't brain surgery.

[sailor65]

17. No, it's not

that's why it always blows my mind that so many people don't understand the clause.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. So what is your claim to citizenship?

Have you got a greencard, or did you just happen to be born here?

[sailor65]

20. Born to citizens

....who were born to citizens, born to citizens,

way back, born to citizens who applied and naturalized.

your point?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. My point is that "anchor babies" are as much citizens as you are.

Don't like it? Leave the country.

"way back, born to citizens who applied and naturalized."

ORLY? Have you got those documents?

[sailor65]

23. Actually, I do have all of them

Or more specifically, my father does.

And before you go attacking me like you're obviously itching to do, you had best go back and read my posts, where you will see that I did not give an opinion on anchor babies or on the right or wrong of legislation. I only clarified a point of order in the amendment that is going to be the focal point in future arguments.

So go attack somebody else.

[Mountainman]

22. The are no special privileges accruing to you because your parents were citizens.

[sailor65]

24. Does anybody here actually READ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1784542&mesg_id=1784892

Why don't you review my posts here and tell me whether I claimed such, or gave any opinion at all on the matter, other than to point out the questionable clause?

[Mountainman]

25. These are your words, what do they mean?

"are widely regarded as being under the jurisdiction of their home government"

You obviously are not referring to the United States or you would not be arguing with us.

[mainegreen]

26. Nah. Takes to much time.

Much more fun to attack first!

:7

[Mountainman]

19. You don't understand yourself then.

[wicket]

4. Yeah! That'll show 'em!!!!

:sarcasm:

[The Straight Story]

9. If nothing else, maybe it will help turn more latino voters against repugs here

the idijits keep shooting themselves in the tapping foot :rofl:

[Book Lover]

6. Dan Lungren is still around?!

Schmuck.

[mitchtv]

13. Yup

Older, fatter, uglier

[Book Lover]

16. Inside and out... (nm)