ABA urges Congress to reject birthright law ROB GILLIES Assocaited Press
TORONTO (AP) — The American Bar Association passed a resolution Tuesday urging the U.S. Congress to reject any changes to the Constitution that would eliminate automatic citizenship for anyone born in the United States.
About 400 members of the attorneys association, which is holding its annual meeting in Toronto, passed the resolution in a voice vote.
Some Republican lawmakers have called for legislation to repeal birthright citizenship and have proposed a constitutional amendment.
Outgoing American Bar Association President Stephen Zack said in an interview that racism is underlying the call to change the constitution. Zack, the first ABA president of Hispanic origin, said it was an important statement by the American Bar Association that the U.S. Constitution must be respected.
“This is something that should be avoided at all costs,” Zack said. “Certain issues are not really about what the words are about, but what the underlying concerns are about.”
The ABA debated the issue last week ahead of Tuesday’s vote.
John Eastman, a conservative law professor at Chapman University in Orange, California, argued that it’s an open question whether the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows for citizenship for anyone born in the U.S. and said it’s time for the U.S. Congress to clarify the issue....................>>>>................>>>>......................................http://theadvocate.com/home/548691-79/aba-urges-congress-to-reject.html
Some Republican lawmakers have called for legislation to repeal birthright citizenship and have proposed a constitutional amendment.
Maybe the lawmakers need to learn how to read. There is no such thing as birthright citizenship. The Constitution states that anyone born under the law of the United States is a citizen, therefore, those who sneak into the country illegally to have their babies are not officially citizens, but we give it to them anyway.
14TH Amendment of the Constitution:
Quoted Text
Section 1. 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.
If you sneak into the country illegally, you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. You are here illegally, therefore, your new baby is NOT A UNITED STATES CITIZEN.
Those illegals who sneak into the USA are NOT citizens... but babies born in the USA from Illegals, are citizens.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The 14Th amendment was passed to protect the slaves when they were emancipated from being deported. The 14Th amendment was never intended to allow anyone to come here illegally have an anchor baby so that the illegals can get around the legal immigration procedures.
The 14Th amendment was passed to protect the slaves when they were emancipated from being deported. The 14Th amendment was never intended to allow anyone to come here illegally have an anchor baby so that the illegals can get around the legal immigration procedures.
That may be your opinion, but not the opinion of the US Supreme Court.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Congress has the power to change the 14Th amendment if they have the support of the people.
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used. The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken. Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Those illegals who sneak into the USA are NOT citizens... but babies born in the USA from Illegals, are citizens.
NO, they're not, because as previously stated, they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, they are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents native land, the place that they snuck here from.
NO, they're not, because as previously stated, they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, they are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents native land, the place that they snuck here from. Can you please state which case it was where the US Supreme Court decided as you are stating?
"All persons born in the United States...excluding Indians not taxed...." were citizens and were to be given "full and equal benefit of all laws." (Quotes from the Civil Rights Act of 1866) Key Clauses of the 14th Amendment Four principles were asserted in the text of the 14th amendment. They were: State and federal ciizenship for all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed. No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens. No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without "due process of law." No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."
Concerning children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three Senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no Senator offered a contrary opinion.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
