• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

USA- last rem. birthright citizenship of developed nations

Faster horses

Well-known member
HERE ARE ALL THE DEVELOPED NATIONS OF THE WORLD
THAT OFFER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO THE BABIES
OF TOURISTS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS:

*United States

That's right, every other modern Developed nation in the world has gotten rid of birthright citizenship policies.

Yet, most of U.S. news media and politicians the last two weeks have ridiculed the comments by some other politicians that it is time for the U.S. to put an end to birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal aliens.

Folks, the U.S. stands alone.

ACTION: Send faxes to your Members of Congress and urge them to immediately sponsor legislation to change the law that currently grants birthright citizenship.

There used to be all kinds of Developed countries that gave away their citizenship as freely as we do in the U.S. But one by one they all have recognized the folly of that policy.

SOME MODERN COUNTRIES THAT RECENTLY
ENDED THEIR BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP POLICY
Canada was the last non-U.S. holdout. Illegal aliens stopped getting citizenship for their babies in 2009.


Australia's birthright citizenship requirements are much more stringent than those of H.R. 1868 and took effect in 2007.


New Zealand repealed in 2006


Ireland repealed in 2005


France repealed in 1993


India repealed in 1987


United Kingdom repealed in 1983


Portugal repealed in 1981

The United States is the laughing stock of the modern world. Only the U.S. values its citizenship so lowly as to distribute it promiscuously to the off-spring of foreign citizens visiting Disney World on tourist visas and to foreign citizens who have violated their promises on their visitor, work and student visas to stay illegally in the country, as well as to those who sneak across our borders.



Notice we are asking to change the "law" and not the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

H.R. 1868 by Rep. Gary Miller of California would merely change the federal law (passed by Congress) that currently requires giving U.S. citizenship to these babies.

We and many Constitutional scholars do not believe a Constitutional Amendment is required. But we also know that as soon as H.R. 1868 is passed there will be suits taking it to the Supreme Court. We believe the Supremes are likely to agree with us that H.R. 1868 does not violate any part of the Constitution.

Go to our "5 Great Immigration-Reduction Bills" page to see all the Members of Congress who are attempting to move the U.S. into the 21st century by co-sponsoring H.R. 1868.

THANKS,
Roy Beck
NumbersUSA
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Not being under the complete Jurisdiction, of the US, is also why a dual citizen cannot be a Natural Born Citizen

Dr. John C. Eastman, Dean of Chapman University’s law school in Orange, California, is among the leading scholars in the nation on constitutional law and has testified before Congress on the issue of birthright citizenship. Eastman states plainly that the framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of allowing another country to wage demographic warfare against the U.S. and reshaping its culture by means of exploiting birthright citizenship.

“We have this common understanding of when you come here to visit, that you are subject to our jurisdiction. You have to obey our traffic laws. If you come here from England, you have to drive on the right side of the road and not on the left side of the road,” he said. “But the framers of the 14th Amendment had in mind two different notions of ‘subject to the jurisdiction.’ There was what they called territorial jurisdiction— you have to follow the laws in the place where you are—but there was also this more complete, or allegiance-owing jurisdiction that held that you not only have to follow the laws, but that you owe allegiance to the sovereign. And that doesn’t come by just visiting here. That comes by taking an oath of support and becoming part of the body politic. And it is that jurisdiction that they are talking about in the 14th Amendment.”

http://www.capsweb.org/content.php?id=775
 
Top