And unlike during the Democrat controlled Congress, this legislation from Republicans will actually see a floor vote
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) isn’t wasting any time with his immigration agenda, dropping a bill on the first day of Congress that goes after birthright citizenship.
King’s measure would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, ending automatic citizenship for anyone born in the country. Instead, the measure requires that only the children of citizens, legal immigrants permanently living in the country or immigrants in the military, be granted citizenship.
It is not necessary to amend the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, as they can simply further define those who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Illegal immigrants, since they are, say it with me, liberals, i-lle-gal, are actually not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, but of their home countries.
And in the States, we learn
A coalition of state legislators from 40 states unveiled a plan [Wednesday] morning to end the practice of giving automatic citizenship to all children born in the United States. Led by Pennsylvania State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, the group timed their press conference with the swearing in ceremony of the 112th Congress, hoping to send a message that Congress needs to actively address illegal immigration.
The United States and Canada are the only two developed nations, as determined by the World Bank, to still grant automatic citizenship to all children born in the country.
Wait, those wonderful European socialist/Progressive nations that Liberals love do not grant automatic citizenship? Thats strange? But, of course, this whole thing has driven some on the Left nuts, and they let their thoughts feelings shine through, like Lawyers, Guns, And Money
As if to provide a perfect example for Dahlia Lithwick’s demonstration of the superficial and selective nature of Tea Party reverence for the Constitution, Steve King has decided to open the new Congress by introducing a flagrantly unconstitutional law. And by “unconstitutional,” I don’t mean “contradicts one possible reading of an open-ended constitutional provision.” I mean “is inconsistent with the unambiguous, specific language of the Constitution”:
And then there is Elizabeth Wydra, at the ACSblog, a massive group of liberals/lefties/progressives, who is obviously emotionally upset about excluding illegal aliens
In sum, the Citizenship Clause was proposed, enacted and ratified with the understanding that it granted automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to alien parents.
Umno. It was intended to give all Blacks, both slaves and free persons, immediate U.S. citizenship, with all the rights and privileges thereof. Government wasnt particularly concerned with illegal aliens coming to the USA at the time. We had plenty of space back in the mid 1800s, and immigrants werent coming here, refusing to learn the language, forming their own little non-English areas, demanding that all the roadsigns, government forms, etc, were written in their language, and so on. You know the rest. They came and joined our great melting pot, and become productive members of society. Now, they drain our services.
Of course, liberals do not care whether the legislation is actually constitutional or not: they are simply upset that someone would attempt to be mean to a future Democrat voting block.