• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Steve King Moves Forward on Bill to End Birthright Citizenship

Donc

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,796
Reaction score
2,590
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
[FONT=Georgia, Time New Roman, serif]Updated at 1:40 p.m. ET with a correction.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Time New Roman, serif]WOW! this'l sure shore up the Hispanic vote for the midterms.[/FONT]
:2wave:


<Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a leading conservative voice on immigration issues, introduced a bill on Wednesday to end the practice of birthright citizenship.>

<It's generally thought that the 14th Amendment provides a constitutional guarantee of citizenship for anyone born in the United States -- known as "birthright citizenship" -- but King told Hotsheet last year that he does not interpret the 14th Amendment that way.>

<Meanwhile, holding Washington's feet to the fire on the issue, Republican state lawmakers from five states came to the capitol Wednesday to unveil their ownstate-driven plan to curtail birthright citizenship. The lawmakers said that legislation addressing the issue will be introduced in 14 states, though they expect it to be immediately challenged in court as unconstitutional.>


Steve King Moves Forward on Bill to End Birthright Citizenship - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
 
Steve King, where were you when we needed you, no one spoke for our country and now it's gone.

Need to make this bill retroactive about thirty years in order to mitigate the incredible liberal engineered destruction that spread across the entire American landscape.

Why not now, Obama won the election. The loons don't need to demand that all worship the devastating cancer of multi-culturalism any more.
 
Last edited:
Well I for one support his efforts. IMO, the courts have misread what the intent of the 14th amendment was regarding citizenship. IMO at least one parent needs to be a US citizen for the child to be grant citizenship at birth.
 
Since this has no chance of passage, I wonder what self-destruct mechanism brought this genius idea forth. Probably felt good, kind of like a big poop, a real blow from the fist of Conservatism to insure their marginalization.

The GOP is committing political suicide and this will assure Democrat control in 2010 and all that that implies. Can you say Quadrillion Dollar Deficit:)?

Surely they have something better to do with their time.
 
[FONT=Georgia, Time New Roman, serif]Updated at 1:40 p.m. ET with a correction.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Time New Roman, serif]WOW! this'l sure shore up the Hispanic vote for the midterms.[/FONT]
:2wave:


<Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a leading conservative voice on immigration issues, introduced a bill on Wednesday to end the practice of birthright citizenship.>

<It's generally thought that the 14th Amendment provides a constitutional guarantee of citizenship for anyone born in the United States -- known as "birthright citizenship" -- but King told Hotsheet last year that he does not interpret the 14th Amendment that way.>

<Meanwhile, holding Washington's feet to the fire on the issue, Republican state lawmakers from five states came to the capitol Wednesday to unveil their ownstate-driven plan to curtail birthright citizenship. The lawmakers said that legislation addressing the issue will be introduced in 14 states, though they expect it to be immediately challenged in court as unconstitutional.>


Steve King Moves Forward on Bill to End Birthright Citizenship - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

The only thing thats going to stop anchor babies is either a full on amendment or a SCOTUS ruling on a case that is actually about illegal parents having a kid on US soil. The first one might be possible...if unlikely. The second one...not a chance in hell due to the way SCOTUS decides on what cases to hear. Because in order to hear a case about anchor babies then someone must be provably directly affected negatively by anchor babies. Good luck of anyone proving that.
 
220px-Carnac.jpg


Karnack sees Latino voter suppression on the horizon.:2wave:
 
Since this has no chance of passage, I wonder what self-destruct mechanism brought this genius idea forth. Probably felt good, kind of like a big poop, a real blow from the fist of Conservatism to insure their marginalization.

The GOP is committing political suicide and this will assure Democrat control in 2010 (2014) and all that that implies. Can you say Quadrillion Dollar Deficit:)?

Surely they have something better to do with their time.

I am wondering that myself at times. Add to that the fact that Congress only passed 200 bills the last 4 years, over half of them to rename federal buildings after war heroes and such... and since they need both the house and the senate to get a bill passed into law... what was he expecting?

This is just further fuel to feed the fire that the GOP is racist, regardless of how true or wrong that statement is.

Furthermore, this story is from january 2011. So 2 years old.
 
....The lawmakers said that legislation addressing the issue will be introduced in 14 states, though they expect it to be immediately challenged in court as unconstitutional.[/FONT][/COLOR]>

Legislators who support laws that they know are unconstitutional should be required to pay the full cost of defending the law in court.
 
this bill is going straight into the shredder. what a waste of time.
 
Since this has no chance of passage, I wonder what self-destruct mechanism brought this genius idea forth.
1) The mechanism smells like Earl Grey.
2) As pointed out above, the story is nearly 2 years old.
3) It is questionable to call it a self-destruct, which implies destruction for Steve King. Although he won his seat by a much smaller margin in Nov than in 2010 we would need to dig deeper for a better analysis (which I am not particularly interested in doing). At any measure it was not a successful self-destruct, or a successful bid at changing the 14th Amendment. The later of course being the more likely to have succeeded.
 
Steve King, where were you when we needed you, no one spoke for our country and now it's gone.

Need to make this bill retroactive about thirty years in order to mitigate the incredible liberal engineered destruction that spread across the entire American landscape.

Why not now, Obama won the election. The loons don't need to demand that all worship the devastating cancer of multi-culturalism any more.

Amazing. In one fell swoop you not only show your racism but also you total clulessness of the American story.
We are a nation of immigrants, Sherlock.
 
I wonder what self-destruct mechanism brought this genius idea forth.
I blame gerrymandering in part. Also, it's one way to make a living, pandering to the talk radio crowd. Their ranks are bound to get smaller, but those remaining are getting more vociferous, and thus make better consumers of books and advertising tailored to their political predilections.
 
I agree and the first action of such a bill should be the revocation of Steve King's citizenship, which he received through birthright. In fact, any and all who support such legislation should receive the same. They didn't do jack**** to earn their citizenship either, so why should they be special.
 
Well I for one support his efforts. IMO, the courts have misread what the intent of the 14th amendment was regarding citizenship. IMO at least one parent needs to be a US citizen for the child to be grant citizenship at birth.

Why? Especially since the whole point of the 14th ammendment was that since the Dred Scott case ruled that Blacks were not citizens, then basically a grandfather clause would have set in to restrict citizenship to Blacks.

I'm not sure why people think that birthright citizenship is an issue. Do y'all really think it allows illegal immigrants to become legal and stay in the US? It doesn't. You have to be 21 to sponsor your parents for their green card.
 
Do y'all really think it allows illegal immigrants to become legal and stay in the US?

When they define "illegal immigrant" to include those of us born here to parents who came here illegally it does.

They believe themselves special because they didn't dribble down the thigh of a citizen before fertilization could occur, as opposed to not dribbling down the thigh of an immigrant. Who cares that neither baby did anything to earn their citizenship, it's all about making the "other" person into something more nefarious.
 
Amazing. In one fell swoop you not only show your racism but also you total clulessness of the American story.
We are a nation of immigrants, Sherlock.

"We?" Next you're going to be talking about "Our" country. You know nothing of the American experience.

What equivalence is there between the hard working, self reliant, Western European immigrants of 100 years ago and you 3rd world, welfare seeking, Obama worshiping illegals of today? America's former immigrants were culture and nation builders, you were imported here to destroy and steal.
 
Why? Especially since the whole point of the 14th ammendment was that since the Dred Scott case ruled that Blacks were not citizens, then basically a grandfather clause would have set in to restrict citizenship to Blacks.

I'm not sure why people think that birthright citizenship is an issue. Do y'all really think it allows illegal immigrants to become legal and stay in the US? It doesn't. You have to be 21 to sponsor your parents for their green card.

the issue I have is when those crossing the borders illegally and then give birth to a child. While the courts don't agree I tend to support the idea that the 14th has been misinterperted This sites sums it up pretty well.

http://www.14thamendment.us/
 
Last edited:
Regardless of what you believe about illegal immigration and reform of our immigration policies it is objectively strange that the US is one of the only countries that has birthright citizenship. Most countries have been on a trend towards repealing it, I think France, Australia, and Ireland did it a few years ago. The argument being it no longer made sense in the modern globalized world and massively reduced control over immigration and citizenship cases which could create problems and might hamper assimilation efforts. I don't know if that's true or not the counter might very well be that by making the US more hospitable to such citizenship it makes itself an immigration magnet which helps the country. Either way its completely legitimate to have the discussion it's just too bad it's so tainted with anti-hispanic fears and the immigration mess.
 
"We?" Next you're going to be talking about "Our" country. You know nothing of the American experience.

What equivalence is there between the hard working, self reliant, Western European immigrants of 100 years ago and you 3rd world, welfare seeking, Obama worshiping illegals of today? America's former immigrants were culture and nation builders, you were imported here to destroy and steal.


Another fine example of racism supported by false history. What you think of Hispanic immigrants, legal and illegal, is nothing compared to the words and actions of many Americans when the Irish and Italians began "flooding" into America.
 
Why? Especially since the whole point of the 14th ammendment was that since the Dred Scott case ruled that Blacks were not citizens, then basically a grandfather clause would have set in to restrict citizenship to Blacks.

I'm not sure why people think that birthright citizenship is an issue. Do y'all really think it allows illegal immigrants to become legal and stay in the US? It doesn't. You have to be 21 to sponsor your parents for their green card.

How many anchor babies are 21+ sponsoring thier parents for citizenship now? I would bet more than a few.
 
the issue I have is when those crossing the borders illegally and then give birth to a child. While the courts don't agree I tend to support the idea that the 14th has been misinterperted This sites sums it up pretty well.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

But WHY do you have an issue with that? First, do you have any evidence that any significant number of people cross the border illegally specifically to have children? It actually occurs fairly commonly I believe with people legally entering the US to give birth, though that seems more about receiving better health care than anything to do with immigration.

In the case that an illegal immigrant gives birth to a child in the US, that child is a US citizen, but is still a minor. The mother can receive some benefits, such as WIC, to care for that child, but she is still here illegally and subject to deportation, regardless of the citizenship of her child.
 
How many anchor babies are 21+ sponsoring thier parents for citizenship now? I would bet more than a few.

That's a pretty inefficient way to go about things, don't you think? Giving birth here and then waiting 21 years to enter legally. I'm not sure how that's an issue.
 
But WHY do you have an issue with that? First, do you have any evidence that any significant number of people cross the border illegally specifically to have children? It actually occurs fairly commonly I believe with people legally entering the US to give birth, though that seems more about receiving better health care than anything to do with immigration.

In the case that an illegal immigrant gives birth to a child in the US, that child is a US citizen, but is still a minor. The mother can receive some benefits, such as WIC, to care for that child, but she is still here illegally and subject to deportation, regardless of the citizenship of her child.

Why would you support a child of an illegal family being granted citizenship? As far as the stats, didn't President Obama just pass an order to grant children of illegal aliens some slack. Why would he do that if it was not a significant issue. Seems last I heard there are over 12 million illegal aliens here in the US.

You evidently didn't read the link. My issue is that through the years the courts have misinterpreted the intent of the 14th when it comes to citizenship.
 
"We?" Next you're going to be talking about "Our" country. You know nothing of the American experience.

What equivalence is there between the hard working, self reliant, Western European immigrants of 100 years ago and you 3rd world, welfare seeking, Obama worshiping illegals of today? America's former immigrants were culture and nation builders, you were imported here to destroy and steal.

More bigotted bull that ignores REAL national history.

Hard working, self reliant, Western European Immigrants???

The Dutch were painted as lazy, drunken simpletons back in colonial days- Rip Van Winkles

The Spanish as vicious,greedy,lazy, drunkards

The French- do we really have to go through the list???

Poles- know any good 'pollack' jokes?

The Irish who came just in time to be cannon fodder for the War of Northern Aggression- lazy, drunks, apelike barely suitable for more than mines and the more dangerous factories.

Germans were not thought of as much better, automatons in the Revolutionary War, cowards in the Civil War, their actions in the Shenandoah Valley didn't earn high praise in Eastern Newspapers.

Eye-talians, they were the first European group to truly scare 'natives' here and get a severe immigration restriction in the 1920's.

So who does that leave in the western european category???
 
Back
Top Bottom