• 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!

HR 147: End Birthright Citizenship

phattonez

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017 said:
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.
This Act shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of its enactment.
Click to expand...


Given how foreigners can come here illegally, give birth in our hospitals for free, and then collect food stamps, housing, education, and many other benefits through their child, why should we not do this? Americans are being robbed, and our politicians have enabled this for decades. It's time to pass this bill.

Steve King said:
A Century ago, it didn’t matter very much that a simple practice began that has now grown into a massive issue of birthright citizenship or the anchor baby agenda,” said King. “When automatic citizenship started being granted to all babies born in the United States, our lawmakers missed the clause in the 14th Amendment that says, ‘And subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ So once the practice began, it grew out of proportion and today between 340,000 and 750,000 babies are born in America each year that get automatic citizenship even though both parents are illegal. I know of no other country in the world that does this, and it must end. My Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017 fixes it, clarifies the 14th Amendment and clarifies the Constitutional meaning of the clause, ‘And subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ President-elect Trump repeatedly called for this bill, and it should be a top priority in Congress.
Click to expand...

https://www.numbersusa.com/news/rep-steve-king-reintroduces-bill-end-birthright-citizenship

Thank you Representative Steve King!

EDIT: That would be HR 140, not 147.
 
phattonez said:
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Given how foreigners can come here illegally, give birth in our hospitals for free, and then collect food stamps, housing, education, and many other benefits through their child, why should we not do this? Americans are being robbed, and our politicians have enabled this for decades. It's time to pass this bill.

Thank you Representative Steve King!

EDIT: That would be HR 140, not 147.
Click to expand...

A bill can't overwrite the constitution. It would take a constitutional amendment.

14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

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.​

So sorry.
 
phattonez said:
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Given how foreigners can come here illegally, give birth in our hospitals for free, and then collect food stamps, housing, education, and many other benefits through their child, why should we not do this? Americans are being robbed, and our politicians have enabled this for decades. It's time to pass this bill.

Thank you Representative Steve King!
Click to expand...

Thank God! We need this bill and we need it now!!!!! I can't believe it took this long to make it happen and with Gorsuch on the bench it will hopefully not get shut down by a bunch of judge-shopping liberals.
 
poweRob said:
A bill can't overwrite the constitution. It would take a constitutional amendment.

So sorry.
Click to expand...

The Constitution never specifically mentions the extent of how birthright citizenship works. This defines it.
 
poweRob said:
A bill can't overwrite the constitution. It would take a constitutional amendment.

So sorry.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment states:

14th Amendment said:
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.
Click to expand...

What does that mean?
 
reinoe said:
The Constitution never specifically mentions the extent of how birthright citizenship works. This defines it.
Click to expand...

Guess you don't know the 14th Amendment

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.​

I bolded it for you.
 
poweRob said:
Guess you don't know the 14th Amendment

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.​

I bolded it for you.
Click to expand...

You forgot to bold the most relevant part to this discussion. I changed the size to point it out for you.
 
phattonez said:
The 14th amendment states:



What does that mean?
Click to expand...

That means if you are John McCain and are born in Panama while your parents are working for the US, it puts you in the jurisdiction of the United States and you can run for president.
 
I think the bill is a good idea, but I'm not sure whether it's legal. I expect immediate challenges if it's passed.
 
phattonez said:
You forgot to bold the most relevant part to this discussion. I changed the size to point it out for you.
Click to expand...

You don't even know what that means. So go ahead and do your usual schtick of trying to throw questions around like you have some kind of esoteric knowledge that no one else has about how it negates the rest of those words.

Enlighten us oh so wise person.
 
poweRob said:
That means if you are John McCain and are born in Panama while your parents are working for the US, it puts you in the jurisdiction of the United States and you can run for president.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment applies only to those:
1) Born in the United States
AND
2) Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Unless both of those apply to you, then the 14th amendment doesn't apply to you. John McCain is a citizen, but it's not because of the 14th amendment.
 
molten_dragon said:
I think the bill is a good idea, but I'm not sure whether it's legal. I expect immediate challenges if it's passed.
Click to expand...

Thankfully Hillary didn't win and we can trust the Supreme Court a little bit more.
 
This needs to pass. The current system creates more problems than it solves and needs to be done away with.
 
poweRob said:
You don't even know what that means. So go ahead and do your usual schtick of trying to throw questions around like you have some kind of esoteric knowledge that no one else has about how it negates the rest of those words.

Enlighten us oh so wise person.
Click to expand...

It doesn't negate the words, it's an additional stipulation.

It's like the rules to join the Boy Scouts. You have to be a boy and below the age of 18. It doesn't mean that all boys can become Boy Scouts. It means that you have to be a boy AND below the age of 18.

You wouldn't think that something so simple would need to be explained.
 
phattonez said:
That has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment applies only to those:
1) Born in the United States
AND
2) Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Unless both of those apply to you, then the 14th amendment doesn't apply to you. John McCain is a citizen, but it's not because of the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

Still haven't told us all what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. Do tell.
 
phattonez said:
It doesn't negate the words, it's an additional stipulation.

It's like the rules to join the Boy Scouts. You have to be a boy and below the age of 18. It doesn't mean that all boys can become Boy Scouts. It means that you have to be a boy AND below the age of 18.

You wouldn't think that something so simple would need to be explained.
Click to expand...

Still waiting on you to explain what you think it means.

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
 
phattonez said:
Thankfully Hillary didn't win and we can trust the Supreme Court a little bit more.
Click to expand...

I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I don't pretend to know how the SC would rule on this one if it made it that far. The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is pretty vague. I mean foreigners who visit the US on visas are subject to US laws, so maybe that counts as "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
 
poweRob said:
Still haven't told us all what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. Do tell.
Click to expand...

It means that the laws of the United States apply to you. Slaves were subject to US law. Illegal immigrants are not subject to our laws, we deport them. Their children also ought to be deportable, which is what this law would do.
 
phattonez said:
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Given how foreigners can come here illegally, give birth in our hospitals for free, and then collect food stamps, housing, education, and many other benefits through their child, why should we not do this? Americans are being robbed, and our politicians have enabled this for decades. It's time to pass this bill.



https://www.numbersusa.com/news/rep-steve-king-reintroduces-bill-end-birthright-citizenship

Thank you Representative Steve King!

EDIT: That would be HR 140, not 147.
Click to expand...

I've written about this subject quite a bit in posts here and elsewhere. The most relevant Supreme Court decisions are Elk v. Wilkins, the first case in which the Court interpreted the Citizenship Clause, and Wong Kim Ark, which came about a dozen years later. The Court got it right in Elk and should return to that interpretation.
 
poweRob said:
Still waiting on you to explain what you think it means.

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Click to expand...

Why do you think that it means nothing?
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I don't pretend to know how the SC would rule on this one if it made it that far. The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is pretty vague. I mean foreigners who visit the US on visas are subject to US laws, so maybe that counts as "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Click to expand...

It is vague, and this bill would clear it up by saying that children born of illegals are not subject to our laws.
 
phattonez said:
Why do you think that it means nothing?
Click to expand...

I never said it didn't.

I just think your silly interpretation will have you let down severelly.
 
poweRob said:
I never said it didn't.

I just think your silly interpretation will have you let down severelly.
Click to expand...

How is a Mexican child who is born to Mexican parents who broke US law and therefore a Mexican citizen and subject to their laws subject to the laws of the United States?
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I don't pretend to know how the SC would rule on this one if it made it that far. The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is pretty vague. I mean foreigners who visit the US on visas are subject to US laws, so maybe that counts as "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Click to expand...

Here's Elk v. Wilkins, where the Court interpreted the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for the first time. It discusses the meaning of that phrase. See in particular pp. 101-102.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/case.html
 
phattonez said:
How is a Mexican child who is born to Mexican parents who broke US law and therefore a Mexican citizen and subject to their laws subject to the laws of the United States?
Click to expand...

Proximity. When I go to France. I'm subject to French law.

Btw... are you saying that unborn child broke the law when he broke the water?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom