14 States may Target Birthright Citizenship

Arizona state politicians will introduce model legislation this week to encourage states to prevent children of illegal immigrants from being granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Lawmakers in at least 14 states have said they are committed to passing the legislation targeting birthright citizenship. Arizona’s anti-illegal-immigrant bill, SB-1070, was also based on model legislation that could be easily copied by states, and at least seven states are likely to pass bills similar to the first Arizona immigration overhaul this year,according to one analysis by an immigrants rights group.

Arizona state Senator Russell Pearce will unveil the bill Jan. 5 in Washington, D.C., the Arizona Capital Times reports. The paper says lawmakers in Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah have said they want to introduce similar legislation this year.

http://patriotupdate.com/1191/14-states ... itizenship

Can a state enact a law that directly contradicts the constitution? I thought the federal gov't conferred citizenship, not the states. And here I thought Republicans revered the constitution, I guess they do for those parts they agree with......not so much for those they do not. The proper course would be to change the US constitution, not try to circumvent it at the state level........

archer wrote: Can a state enact a law that directly contradicts the constitution? I thought the federal gov't conferred citizenship, not the states. And here I thought Republicans revered the constitution, I guess they do for those parts they agree with......not so much for those they do not. The proper course would be to change the US constitution, not try to circumvent it at the state level........

Why not? The Federal government enacts laws that contradicts the Constitution.

archer wrote: Can a state enact a law that directly contradicts the constitution? I thought the federal gov't conferred citizenship, not the states. And here I thought Republicans revered the constitution, I guess they do for those parts they agree with......not so much for those they do not. The proper course would be to change the US constitution, not try to circumvent it at the state level........

Why not? The Federal government enacts laws that contradicts the Constitution.

archer wrote: Can a state enact a law that directly contradicts the constitution? I thought the federal gov't conferred citizenship, not the states. And here I thought Republicans revered the constitution, I guess they do for those parts they agree with......not so much for those they do not. The proper course would be to change the US constitution, not try to circumvent it at the state level........

Oh, but we do revere the Constitution archer, which is why the bastardization of the 14th Amendment is so upsetting to us. We all know that neither the authors of the amendment nor those that ratified it were intending to grant citizenship to someone as a result of the mother violating the sovereignty of this nation and illegally entering the country to give birth to her child.

The legislation being considered will be a challenge to the evolutionist position that currently allows the child of one who is here illegally, and not therefore solely subject to the jurisdiction of this nation, to be proclaimed a citizen of the nation. The child born to a diplomat from a foreign nation is not recognized as a citizen if they are born here when there parents are here. Why, therefore, should the child born to any foreign parents be granted that honor? That was clearly not the intent of the amendment when it was written and ratified. We all know that Section I of the 14th Amendment was written to address the results of the Dred Scott ruling, don't we?

Under an original intent interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the child of illegal aliens would not be a citizen of this nation simply because the birth occurred within the territory of the United States. It is only an evolutionary interpretation, which thus far has not been addressed by SCOTUS at all, that allows this to occur.

A more proper manner of addressing the issue would be for a state to enact legislation that made the child of illegal aliens a citizen if that is what the state wanted to do. What is currently happening is what is truly a circumvention of the amendment and its purpose, not the legislation being considered which challenges the misapplication of the 14th Amendment.

I do believe the Supreme Courts opinion trumps you, PS, and the states.......again, if you want to change how things are done then use the proper federal channels. States don't confer citizenship.

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: Can a state enact a law that directly contradicts the constitution? I thought the federal gov't conferred citizenship, not the states. And here I thought Republicans revered the constitution, I guess they do for those parts they agree with......not so much for those they do not. The proper course would be to change the US constitution, not try to circumvent it at the state level........

Oh, but we do revere the Constitution archer, which is why the bastardization of the 14th Amendment is so upsetting to us. We all know that neither the authors of the amendment nor those that ratified it were intending to grant citizenship to someone as a result of the mother violating the sovereignty of this nation and illegally entering the country to give birth to her child.

The legislation being considered will be a challenge to the evolutionist position that currently allows the child of one who is here illegally, and not therefore solely subject to the jurisdiction of this nation, to be proclaimed a citizen of the nation. The child born to a diplomat from a foreign nation is not recognized as a citizen if they are born here when there parents are here. Why, therefore, should the child born to any foreign parents be granted that honor? That was clearly not the intent of the amendment when it was written and ratified. We all know that Section I of the 14th Amendment was written to address the results of the Dred Scott ruling, don't we?

Under an original intent interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the child of illegal aliens would not be a citizen of this nation simply because the birth occurred within the territory of the United States. It is only an evolutionary interpretation, which thus far has not been addressed by SCOTUS at all, that allows this to occur.

A more proper manner of addressing the issue would be for a state to enact legislation that made the child of illegal aliens a citizen if that is what the state wanted to do. What is currently happening is what is truly a circumvention of the amendment and its purpose, not the legislation being considered which challenges the misapplication of the 14th Amendment.

children of foreign diplomats are not under the jurisdiction of the united states, they are considered to be on the soil of their country of which they serve.
The language of the 14th amendment is very clear:
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.

It is very clear from the plain language of the Amendment that any child born in the United States and is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen. This has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court and lower courts. Even if the child has illegal immigrants for parents, that child is still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and is thus a citizen. There is no other meaning that can be drawn from the language of the 14th Amendment.
The attempt by some to "bastardize" the 14th Amendment to suit their agenda is an affront to the Constitution.

We really need to change this Amendment, its intended purpose to allow former slaves and current Native Americans to become citizens has been perverted. The US is one of the few countries that still allow birthright citizenship.

It never ceases to amuse me that those on here who revere the Constitution as if it had come down from the mountain on stone-tablets, like it a lot...except all the parts they want to change...The 1st Amendment, the 4th, 5th, 10th, 14th, 17th, ad nauseum... You really worship it--except the parts that you don't like...

Why am I not surprised....

archer wrote: I do believe the Supreme Courts opinion trumps you, PS, and the states.......again, if you want to change how things are done then use the proper federal channels. States don't confer citizenship.

And in which Supreme Court case has it been decided that the child of an illegal alien born within our borders is a citizen under the 14th Amendment archer? It hasn't yet been placed before the Supreme Court, which is the purpose of the legislation under consideration. The legislature, along with most everyone else, realizes that the 14th Amendment was intended to confer citizenship to the descendants of the men and women who were kidnapped from their former nation and involuntarily forced to serve as slaves to others. It was drafted in the wake of the Dred Scott decision which said that the newly freed slaves were not citizens of the nation and was crafted specifically to address that ruling and confer citizenship to those to whom the Supreme Court's ruling had denied it to. That's it archer; that was the purpose of the amendment.

And you are wrong about states conferring citizenship. Thirteen sovereign states, each with their own citizens, decided to band together to form a union. Citizenship in the several states came before citizenship in the union of those states. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson both considered themselves citizens of Virgina first and of the Union second. In fact, that was the commonly held opinion well into the 19th century. You remember General Lee, don't you? The man who resigned his commission from the army after being offered to command it by President Lincoln? He resigned that commission because, in part, he couldn't take up arms against his fellow citizens of Virginia. He was a Virginian first. That tradition continues to this day. I am a citizen of Colorado, and also by virtue of that citizenship, a citizen of the United States of America since the sovereign state of Colorado is a member of the union of states. Should I desire to relocate in another state within the union, my citizenship in the union establishes me as a citizen within my new state. That is the way that it worked at the outset and the way it continues to work today.