Georgia congressman wants to end automatic citizenship

G

GCman2005

Banned
Provided By: The Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) -- Congressman Nathan Deal is proposing a change in the long-standing federal policy that automatically grants citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil. Supporters of Deal's proposal say "birthright citizenship" encourages illegal immigration.


Opponents say the proposed law wouldn't solve the illegal immigration problem and goes against the tradition of welcoming immigrants. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution says anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. Deal, who is running for governor, says the wording isn't meant to automatically give citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.


Deal proposes that babies born in the U.S. would automatically have citizenship only if at least one of their parents is a U.S. citizen or national, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., or actively serving in the U.S. military.
 
Several similar bills like this have been attempted over the years, but none went anywhere. This one won't go anywhere either.
 
Even if it passes, which almost certainly will not happen, it has a clause about children of legal permanent residents being eligible for automatic citizenship.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GCman2005 said:
Provided By: The Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) -- Congressman Nathan Deal is proposing a change in the long-standing federal policy that automatically grants citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil. Supporters of Deal's proposal say "birthright citizenship" encourages illegal immigration.


Opponents say the proposed law wouldn't solve the illegal immigration problem and goes against the tradition of welcoming immigrants. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution says anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. Deal, who is running for governor, says the wording isn't meant to automatically give citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.


Deal proposes that babies born in the U.S. would automatically have citizenship only if at least one of their parents is a U.S. citizen or national, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., or actively serving in the U.S. military.
Click to expand...


The text of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is pretty clear on this point: "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." So any attempt to end automatic citizenship for people born in the U.S. will require a change in the U.S. Constitution, not just a change in federal laws or regulations. This is simply not going to happen in any forseeable future.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Congressmen who write and support bills like this know it isn't going to become law. It is only political posturing to gain support from the anti-immigrant voters in their district.
 
Just an election time gimmick. It won't go anywhere. It is against constitution. And he might very well aware that he won't get any support except few from the southern states.

Recently Texas governor talked about succeeding from the Union to hit back on his future opponent.

It is just to stoke local feelings to score some political miles .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He introduced the same resolution in 2005 (HR 698 Citizenship Reform Act of 2005) and 2007 (HR 1940 Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 ), both of which died. Now he reintroduces it in 2009 under HR 1868 Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009. Even though previous bills have failed and the supreme court ruled in 1982 that the 14th amendment applies to illegal immigrants living in the US, he still tries to introduce such a measure. Seems like a waste of time, but all part of the political game in Washington DC.
 
I think they rules shud remain the same. Otherwise, I think we might not have had Obama as our president now! :)
 
Sometimes Congress makes new laws that contradict the Constitution, nothing wrong with that. In those cases the law exists, but cannot be applied to any particular cases. That would be the case if the bill is signed into law.
If, after a law like that is signed, the Constitution changes and the contradiction is resolved, the law becomes functional and could be actually applied. Things like that happen.
Constitutional amendments are very rare under US law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
raevsky said:
Sometimes Congress makes new laws that contradict the Constitution, nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Most courts of law would disagree with "nothing wrong with that" point :) If the law is blatantly at odds with Constitution then the judicial review will hopefully strike the law (or parts of it) down.
 
thomas5 said:
Obama is ruining our nation.
Click to expand...

Now you're just trolling. This has NOTHING to do with US citizenship and NOTHING to do with the thread purpose.

To be a little bit on topic I will vote against Nathan Deal in upcoming elections if I am eligible to vote in 2010.
 
Jackolantern said:
The Congressmen who write and support bills like this know it isn't going to become law. It is only political posturing to gain support from the anti-immigrant voters in their district.
Click to expand...

just curious: why is this bill "anti-immigrant"? children of legal immigrants would not be affected by such a bill.

btw, very few countries in the world grants citizenship this way. recently, ireland and new zealand abolished similar citizenship clauses and with overwhelming support.
 
MasterArcht said:
just curious: why is this bill "anti-immigrant"? children of legal immigrants would not be affected by such a bill.

btw, very few countries in the world grants citizenship this way. recently, ireland and new zealand abolished similar citizenship clauses and with overwhelming support.
Click to expand...

It's considered anti-immigrant as even illegal immigrants are protected under the 14th amendment per the supreme court.
 
Sooner or later this will be changed. America can not take in immigrants forever. This be achieved if natural balanced is reached that is the people
who want to immigrate to America are no more than what American can take in because America is worse off or the rest of teh world is better off
Otherwise American will tough its immigration law and try all means to keep people out.

But this is an issue for future not for us to face
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hopefully strike the law (or parts of it) down
Click to expand...
It will nullify the law, but the law will still exist. As I said, the law is not canceled when it contradicts constitution, it is just nullified. When the constitution is amended, and contradiction is solved, the nullified law prevails.
In order to amend the constitution 3/4 of states should also ratify the amendment, in addition to action of congress with 2/3ds in each chamber or constitutional assembly. Some amendmends wait for more than 200 years to be ratified.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top