Tuesday: I hope it gets through. I'd bet you don't even know the original purpose of the Constitutional principle of birthright.

Tuesday: Which means they can CHANCE IT TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE !

Tuesday: They already have this. What the libs means is that people like me, who work hard, (and my home is PAID FOR) should have our money STOLEN FROM US so that some lazy welfare ground feeder can get a free or reduced house. BS

Did you know that the Bible says that if you won't work you shouldn't be fed? Newsflash: you have to contribute or you should go without!

Tuesday: Democrats ONLY want birthright for one reason: Votes. They don't care about he abuse that's going on. As long as they can retain power, that's all they care about.

The 14th amendment was NEVER intended for anchor babies. I fully support the change the Republicans are trying to make. YOU on the other hand seem fine about supporting fraud.

The purpose and REASON for the 14th: The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

It was NOT so that people could cross the boarder illeaglly (a word Dems don't understand) have their baby (at taxpayer's expense) and then USE THAT CHILD A AND EXCUSE TO STAY IN THE US!.

This is NOT the intention of the 14th. During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.

It makes complete sense to take a look at this amendment and close the "loophole" whereby those that cross the border illegally FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING THEIR BABY INSIDE THE BORDERS OF THE US will NOT be granted citizenship for their child. Those here illegally, who break our LAWS (democrats have trouble with that concept) should NOT be granted citizenship. They should be sent back to their own country. Do it legally or get sent back. We have laws, obey them or leave.

You liberals have a problem with that concept.

Artful Dodger: The idea is not bad, no doubt about it, but this would mean a significant breakthrough in the international law as we know it. The entire conflict-of-law area would have to be revised. Say, for example, that a child born in a particular country would become a national of that country only if its mother was not an illegal alien. But then – what nationality would the child have? The one of its mother? The one of the country from which the mother came to the country where the child was born? I am not against reconsidering the current system, but it would cause lots of problems.

Pedro Martínez: I think that's why it's a good idea to look at the current law, adjust it so that it can't be exploited by those who do so illegally, and at the same time, consider all the possible scenarios and find language that covers those clearly. My attitude is that someone seeking to legally enter the US, if they have a child here (before they are granted citizenship) that child should be automatically given citizenship. However, anyone who enters the US illegally, and have a child while here, that child is NOT granted automatic citizenship. Visitors to the US, if they have a child while visiting, do not get citizenship for that child. It's for people who are here legally with intentions of seeking citizenship themselves. Those on worker programs here legally but living in another country, should also not be granted citizenship to their children born here. The Republican party is right on in looking at amending the 14th. Clearly, the 14th's original purpose is being abused and Democrats are looking the other way (because it means votes for them - they don't really care about the people - ultimately they only care about remaining in power.

Art


: I think the answer to your question is also in the 14 the amendment, it's a line that gets forgotten all to often.

"all persons born or naturalized in the United states, AND UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF..."

That last line is what conveniently gets dropped, and is why babies of illegal aliens should not get get citizenship, that point was made clear by the authors of the amendment. and is why babies born outside of their country of citizenship should get their birthright from their parents country, not visa-versa

personally I do not think the law needs to be changed, only the judges who Ignore the Constitution in favor of their personal agenda, and the idiots in congress who fail to tell them "thanks for your opinion but take a hike as your opinion has no place here"
Legally, the only jurisdiction the judges have is to rule the amendment constitutional or not, either way citizenship would not be allowed

Vikings: I agree. Unfortunately, with so many activist judges we probably need some more specific language so that there's no room for activist interpretations.

And I really think another huge aspect of the problem lies in the fact that Democrats are courting the vote with immigration and anchor babies represent votes to them. Not just the votes those babies represent when they become of voting age, but the likelihood that their parents get fast-tracked into US citizenship because of Democratic policies that are likely to pass (unless we change things). Those parents will largely vote Democratic.

The vote is the only reason Democrats care about this issue. They care only about power (this is evidenced by their power grab in Washington, putting forth policies in spite of the fact that the majority of American citizens oppose those policies, and the huge growth of the Federal government into so many aspects of our lives. This is the Democratic way. But they do it in the guise of caring for the middle-income and the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Tuesday said: ""He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists."

Tuesday said:Would you put them backout in society?"

**It's not going to happen. No society that's civilized will castrate offenders. But it's not a bad idea. Then I'd lock them up for life.

Tuesday said:" What if someone is wrongly accused like an exes spite case..better cut off their hands too if rightly accused cuz they will use something else."

**A silly response. It's not going to happen. But I've seen the after effects of abuse and it's a life-long sentence for the victims. I don't have much sympathy for pedophiles and have no sympathy for "rehabilitation."

Tuesday said:"Let's get rid property taxes too, you wouldn't get a pay check."

**I never made that suggestion and wouldn't. And it's a lame connection to a teacher paycheck. All public employees deserve to be compensated for their work.

""I'd bet you don't even know the original purpose of the Constitutional principle of birthright".

Tuesday said:Try to have a debate without insulting. I know it's difficult for you. I didn't write this I posted it."

**You say to try to debate without insulting, and follow it by an insult.

**Let me rephrase it: I KNOW you DON'T even have a clue regarding the original purpose of constitutional behind the 14th.

Tuesday: Two new insults from the insult complainer.

**which she has now deleted

Tuesday:

Tuesday: Depends on what you mean by the word "know."