Why do we think of a slimy monster when describing a DEM?
Birthright Citizenship is Wrongly Applied
Hello!
The 14th Amendment original meaning of jurisdiction refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
Birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment and the anchor baby scam was invented 30 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the kids born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens. Can Birthright Citizenship Be Overturned Without A Constitutional Amendment?
What does it take to get the amendment repealed?
It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it. The one instance of an amendment appeal, the 21st Amendment, shows how this unusual process works.
Is there any other way to right the wrong?
Ask #paulryan #randpaul #treygowdy #franciscohernandez
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.
The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.
It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.
Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.
The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.
It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.
Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.
What's Up with Chain Migration?
It's just not fair and needs to be corrected (not to mention the costs on so many levels)
email your Congressman after election to get this done - see below
March 28, 2019 Press Release
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Congressman Greg Steube (FL-17), introduced the Break the Chain Act to limit family-based immigration visas to spouses and minor children of U.S. Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents. The bill also creates a renewable, 5-year term, nonimmigrant visa for parents of citizens that does not include work authorization.
“Chain migration is a serious problem in this country. Under current law, hundreds of thousands of individuals immigrate to our country annually through immediate relative status. This bill would remove these immigration categories and make it so that all immigrants are on equal footing when it comes to applying for citizenship,” said Congressman Steube following the introduction of the bill. “I don’t think it’s fair that individuals get preferential treatment in immigration because they are distantly related to a citizen, so my bill creates an even playing field for all applicants.”
The bill would rescind the F1, F2(B), F3, and F4 family sponsored visa preference categories and the parent category, leaving only spouses and minor children to be eligible for immediate relative status under F2(A). Applicants applying under the F2(A) category will be processed based on the age on which their application for green card was filed. The bill would go into effect on October 1, 2020, and petitions for the eliminated family preference categories could not be accepted after that date, nor could pending petitions be approved. Petitions approved before that date may receive allocated green cards, but only up to the allocation amount for that category for FY20.
“My bill also creates a new program that would allow parents of citizens to receive a renewable, 5-year term, nonimmigrant visa,” continued Steube. “This program would allow parents to join their adult children the United States given the child can provide health insurance to their parents throughout their duration in the U.S. I think this program will be extremely helpful to many families.”
Over the last decade, an average of 120,268 immediate relative green cards were issued to parents of U.S. citizens annually—the largest of any immediate relative status category. This new program would address this influx. Parents in the U.S. under the program would not receive work authorization.
Congressman Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA-14) is the original co-sponsor on the bill.
A comical approach ---> HERE
The Republican Woman Squad - listen to song!
Don't forget local activites; Nevada Example
small biz/virus challenge -see video - must see!
Men and Women should be members -- HERE
All of us can enjoy Trumpchat, right?
In my opinion . . .
Demographics are shifting, and times are changing. We saw that in this past election across the country. In 2020, it’s not going to be enough to get the base out to vote in swing states. Republicans are going to have to expand the base, if we want to control both the House and Senate! What needs to be done - send your emails to your local Republican office with these ideas and more!
Looking toward future voter/High Schoolers: “Democracy Debate” can be your local youth voting program that is
aimed at actively engaging high school students in the elections process. The
class is designed to teach students why voting matters and why democracy rocks.
The 45-minute lesson plan could use music, pop culture, video, classroom
discussion and a mock election to teach young people skills to navigate the
elections process. During the program, students would be given the opportunity
to register to vote.
The information that is shared with these students during the Democracy
Debate program will help them know what to expect when the time comes for
them to vote. Each local High School should have such a program, right!
Elementary School voter machine and main office look-see reality video with images like this:
Republican Elections Office should help conduct student Council and Class Officer elections for local public and private high schools. This allows students to experience the election process
firsthand.
Local businesses could gain customers, if they sponsored a youth patriotic art contest. Winner would have art on business windows, menus, advertising etc. Restaurants, mechanics, gun sales/clubs etc.
ROTC presentations with informative info avail and everywhere. Maybe combine with some military drill team exhibitions, along with appropriate cadences.
Another idea, the Elections Office could facilitate voting through xxx, an online ballot that allows students in grades K-8 to vote for their favorite book about Revolutionary or our Civil Wars. The ballot, which is programmed by the Elections Office, uses the book title and a picture of the book cover to allow students to identify their favorite book. Students would receive an “I Voted” sticker, pencil/pen, and a certificate for their participation in the election. The results will be emailed to each school. This program is a great way to encourage reading and introduce students to the electoral process. It is never too early to educate students on the importance of voting! Each school needs to be invited to inform and to have a Republican contact person.
Calling with email campaign to everyone in local district. Let's get the facts out to those who vote!
Get local viewers for your podcast via social media!
Also, people moving and adjusting to new surroundings would appreciate help, right? Your Realtor will supply you with the registration form needed to update your address or register to vote for the first time. Simply fill out the form and mail it to your local Supervisor of Elections.
Make volunteers available to come speak. All sorts of groups want speakers, right? HOA, ALF, schools, businesses, non-profits, clubs, churches and organizations.
Do you have any other ideas - send your emails to your local Republican office with these ideas and more!
!
0 Comments