Ariz. lawmakers to target automatic citizenship

reply to post by buddhasystem


Hello buddhasystem, I just found this, What do You Think?
politics.blogs.foxnews.com...
Congressman Wants Arizona Immigration Law to Go National
U.S. Congressman Ed Royce (R-Ca.) thinks he has enough support in the House of Representatives to pass new immigration legislation very similar to the controversial and much-discussed Arizona law, S.B.1070.

The meat of Royce's bill would allow local police, at the state level, to enforce federal immigration laws- something they are not presently permitted to do. "We're basically giving them the option, if you're in local law enforcement, to assist," said Royce on Friday morning's edition of America's Newsroom.

You can see across the United States this growing groundswell, where there is this recognition now that national security is border security, so I think it's possible we'll get it through the Senate," he says. "Then we'll have that struggle with whether or not we can get the president to sign it."

My Great State of Arizona as taking a lot of Hits and people calling to Boycott us, which failed miserably, our Hotel and Motels had the same amount of bookings.
We need to have the Balls to ask the question, Are You Here Legally?

reply to post by rnaa

Of course you realize that this would make millions of Americans Dual Citizens, don't you? Of course many millions are already, but if jus sanguinis were to be the way of the world there would be very very few 'single citizens'.

No, that is not how it works. Jus sanguinis IS the way of the world, every country including those in Americas (and the US) practice jus sanguinis. It is the standard way of getting citizenship by birth. Then IN ADDITION to jus sanguinis, some countries practice jus soli, too.

Jus sanguinis usualy has some requirements, too, like parents living in the country for some years, etc. This is to prevent dual citizenships.

reply to post by Maslo

No, that is not how it works. Jus sanguinis IS the way of the world, every country including those in Americas (and the US) practice jus sanguinis. It is the standard way of getting citizenship by birth. Then IN ADDITION to jus sanguinis, some countries practice jus soli, too.

Incorrect. The US does not 'practice' jus sanguinis.

The US rule is jus solis and the 14th Amendment took that 'practice' out of the realm of common law and put it into explicit Constitutional provision. The 14th amendment makes it clear: in the US there is only two ways to become a citizen: be born in the US (i.e. Natural Born) or be naturalized according to law.

The Constitution also makes it clear that Congress, and Congress alone, is empowered to make law relating to naturalization process, but it has no power to affect the citizenship status of persons born on US soil. Period. That Congress has enacted laws that grants Citizenship to certain classes of individuals not born on US soil, for example children born overseas to Citizen parents, does not make the US a practitioner of jus sanguinis and it does not make those persons 'birthright' natural born citizens, it makes them 'automatically naturalized at birth'. There is legitimate debate whether this 'automatic naturalization at birth' is equivalent to Natural Born Citizenship; it has never been tested, and if it is not equivalent, then McCain would not be eligible.

The laws that Congress has made to grant citizenship to people born overseas do not grant birthright citizenship, they grant legal citizenship. Furthermore, the prevalence of jus sanguinis in Europe and Asia as the primary birthright citizenship method (if that is indeed the case), is a direct result of the diaspora of ethnic groups during the various periods of Empire, and the discrimination against non-aboriginal ethnic groups. jus sanguinis made it possible for, say, ethnic Hungarians to return from Turkey after the collapse of the empire.

When citizens of different countries that use jus sanguinis as their primary birthright rule have children, those children automatically have dual citizenship, inherited through their parents. If that child is born on US soil, it automatically have triple citizenship, and since it is a natural born citizen is eligible for the Presidency.

The Arizona bill, and similar bills in other states, are unconstitutional on several grounds. First of all and most obviously, they are political weapon aimed at a particular individual. It is, in my opinion, a bill of attainder, and will not be allowed to stand (however IANAL and the case law is confusing). Second, the States just flat out have no authority to add more restrictive qualifications than those defined in the Constitution, and there is settled case law about that subject.

Third, the bills are positively antiAmerican, attempting to disqualify a candidate due to dual citizenship is giving the laws of other countries superior authority to that of the US Constitution. It is up to the US Constitution to define the eligibility requirements for the office of President, not the Israeli Constitution, or the Irish Constitution, or the Italian Constitution, or the German Constitution.

You may think that these bills, when challenged, will force SCOTUS to address the issue of NBC and provide some holy grail definition, even though the definition has existed for 150 years and the case law has been settled for over 110 years. These laws will be struck down without reference to any definition of NBC because they violate the Constitution, just like Birther lawsuit 100% failure rate.

Jus sanguinis usualy has some requirements, too, like parents living in the country for some years, etc. This is to prevent dual citizenships.

No it doesn't. A child born to 10th Generation American Citizen Jewish parents in the Houston, Texas is according to the Constitution of the United States, a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be President of the United States. He/She is also, according to the Constitution of Israel, a citizen of Israel, even though many generations have never set foot in Israel. According to the Arizona and Nebraska bills, this person is ineligible to be President due to that dual citizenship.

Italy, Germany, and many other countries have similar laws that make American Natural Born Citizens, dual citizens because of their parents or even grandparents. By what right does Arizona or Nebraska have to legislate that the laws of Israel, Italy, German, or any other country trump the American Constitution?

reply to post by rnaa


Splitting hair... is getting old. The birthright thing is obsolete and in this day and age, anti-American -- because it's an enabling factor for the invaders. It needs to go.

It's going to happen and it's going to spread. Birthright Citizenship Coming to an End in Arizona? YES!!!!!!!

latino.foxnews.com...
Bill Denying Birthright Citizenship in Arizona Will Come to a Vote Next Week.
The state's legislation would define a U.S. citizen as someone who has been naturalized, or someone born in this country who has at least one parent who has no allegiance to a foreign country.

Supporters of the idea say guaranteed citizenship results in taxpayers covering the costs of services provided to illegal immigrants and their children.

Last fall, Pearce said that the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which addresses citizenship, was not meant to apply to the children of people who live in the United States illegally.

“This is a battle of epic proportions,” Pearce, Republican, said at a press conference in Arizona. "We’ve allowed the hijacking of the 14th Amendment.”

Originally posted by guohua
My Great State of Arizona is Taking The Fight To The Constitution Again!

Corrected for truth.

reply to post by rnaa

Incorrect. The US does not 'practice' jus sanguinis.

Incorrect.

en.wikipedia.org...

Many nations have a mixture of jus sanguinis and jus soli, including the United States, Canada, Italy, Israel, Germany (as of recently), Greece, the Republic of Ireland and others.

So US citizenship is automatically inherited when at least one parent is an US citizen (and spent ceratin amount of years in the US before birth, which is obviously moot point when comparing with jus soli), even if jus soli will be abolished.

Of course you realize that this would make millions of Americans Dual Citizens, don't you?

How? What does it have with citizenships of other countries?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Splitting hair... is getting old.

Splitting hairs? You are arguing what the law should be, according to your personal preferences, and rnaa is talking about what the law is.

The birthright thing is obsolete and in this day and age, anti-American -- because it's an enabling factor for the invaders. It needs to go.

You may call it many things, but granting citizenship to anyone who is born in the United States, regardless of background, religion or parentage, so they are in equal footing with any other citizen, is anything but anti-American. I would say it is actually at the very essence of what America is about.

But if you truly want this to be changed the Constitution specifies how it must be done — a constitutional amendment. Everything else, especially a state statutory measure, is futile and unconstitutional.

And it’s quite obvious that the supporters of measures like this one in Arizona are letting their personal feelings and prejudices get in the way of what the Constitution unambiguously says, otherwise they wouldn’t cheering for such a pathetic and merely symbolic attempt to change US citizenship jurisprudence and law.

Originally posted by aptness
You may call it many things, but granting citizenship to anyone who is born in the United States, regardless of background, religion or parentage, so they are in equal footing with any other citizen, is anything but anti-American. I would say it is actually at the very essence of what America is about.

This is what America used to be about. Territories, land rush, frontier and all that. The nation (I would hope) has matured beyond the stage where ANYBODY WHO CARES TO BREAK IMMIGRATION RULES knocks up their wife/girlfriend on the American soil and then heads right to the Social Security office.

Reply to post by guohua

--"Activists seeking to close the birthright citizenship loophole currently presented by the far-reaching interpretation of the 14th Amendment are vilified by illegal immigrant advocates as engaging in "anti-Hispanic sentiment.""--

Wait a minute here.

Weren't these the same groups that threw a fit over the border fence, saying that it was racist because not only brown people come here illegally?

Now they are saying that this is racist because it targets brown people.

What happened to the idea of they are not the only ones who come illegally?

Dolts.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Lemon.Fresh, It's Great to hear from you.
Let's take a quick look at the counter, it is an actual on going counter of illegals in counter and how many babies have been born to them, any way here are some of the things it shows, Illegal Aliens in Country, Other Than Mexican Illegals in Country, Money Wired to Mexico Since Jan 2006, Money Wired to Latin America Since 2001,
Cost of Social Services Since 1996, Children of Illegals in Public Schools, Cost of Illegals in K-12 Since 1996,
Illegal Aliens Incarcerated, Cost of Incarcerations Since 2008, Illegal Alien Fugitives, Anchor Babies Since 2002
and Skilled Jobs Provided to Illegal Aliens.

ImmigrationCounters.com provides the key numbers and events of illegal immigration in the United States. Using the latest government and private sources, research and analysis trending data is factored at their individual rates of increase. For information about the research behind the individual counters, click here Data Sources. ImmigrationCounters.com supports legal immigration and respect for all humanity, yet highlights the significant impact of illegal immigration. Knowledge is power, welcome to your power.

Live Numbers at: immigrationcounters.com...

reply to post by buddhasystem


You are so absolutely correct again buddhasystem, Look what has happened to this Solders family, the problem his wife facing as he is stationed in Iraq because of illegals.


How about this, 15 years in American and 10 children later ( who paid for the kids? ) she still can't speak English.


Face the Facts America,,, 15 Years and can't speak English,,,, Come on,,, how about trying a little to show some respect for the tax payers.

Reply to post by guohua

Trust me. I know. I live 10 minutes from Mexico.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in their thinking.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

It is easy for people in states not affected by illegal immigration to talk. They do not have to foot the bill that Arizonans have to pay. That guy that rented to the illegal immigrants is a ****tard. I hope he loses his shirt on the real estate deal.

15 years is plenty enough time to learn English. But why should she do that when she has learned to game the system. I will bet she even goes to the polls on election day to vote in Spanish.

reply to post by buddhasystem

This is what America used to be about. Territories, land rush, frontier and all that. The nation (I would hope) has matured beyond the stage...

And who is it that claim they want to 'return America to what made America great'? Isn't it the same people who are trying to move it in exactly the opposite direction of what it is that made America great?

where ANYBODY WHO CARES TO BREAK IMMIGRATION RULES knocks up their wife/girlfriend on the American soil and then heads right to the Social Security office.

Well, of course you know that just does not happen, don't you? 99.44% of all welfare cheats are good ol' 100% Nth generation Americans.

Illegal immigrants that have children in the US, tend to get deported, along with their US Citizen child. That child can claim NBC citizenship, if desired, when they turn 18. The citizenship status of the child doesn't have any effect on the citizenship or residence of the parent, anymore than the citizenship or residence status of the parents affects the citizenship status of the American born child.