GOP takes on the anchor baby problem

[BigRob]

There isn't any "law" saying anchor babies are citizens - just bad judicial precedent. If anyone stops treating them like citizens, they won't be breaking any law, because there is none. Rather the leftwing would sue, which is good because the likely result is that bad precedent would be overturned.

The law is there, claiming that it is not is foolish.

It is spelled out in the 14th Amendment, and found again in the US Code in Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1401.

Just because you find the interpretation to be wrong, does not negate that the Supreme Court disagreed with you and that what is in place in actually the law.

Simplistic. If congress passes the law, then obozo has to ask himself if he wants to oppose poll after poll opposing the illegal alien invasion AND congress. As a crafty politician from the Chicago democratic machine, and with the 2012 election considered, he probably wouldn't isolate himself in that way: obozo against the country.

"If" Congress passes the law, a major if... and what polls on this issue exactly are you referring to?

 

[Rick]

The law is there, claiming that it is not is foolish.

It is spelled out in the 14th Amendment, and found again in the US Code in Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1401.

Like most people who cite BOTH of those, you are ignorant of, or just brushing off the WIDE disagreement among informed people over the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Once again, you need to read up.

Just because you find the interpretation to be wrong, does not negate that the Supreme Court disagreed with you and that what is in place in actually the law.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the issue of unconstitutional rulings by the USSC.

"If" Congress passes the law, a major if... and what polls on this issue exactly are you referring to?

Eg http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/08/rasmussen-poll-america-opposes-anchor-babies-and-always-has/

 

[BigRob]

Like most people who cite BOTH of those, you are ignorant of, or just brushing off the WIDE disagreement among informed people over the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Once again, you need to read up.

"Wide disagreement among informed people" does not mean the law no longer applies..it just means there is a debate surrounding the issue.

As for reading up.. I am well aware of the arguments surrounding the debate, my point (as it was all along) is that a change in that law has little hope of passing anytime in the near future.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the issue of unconstitutional rulings by the USSC.

"Unconstitutional rulings" according to who? You?

Eg http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/08/rasmussen-poll-america-opposes-anchor-babies-and-always-has/

Thank you.

I do find it somewhat interesting that a majority of people (in your link) would support giving illegal immigrants who serve two years in the military citizenship.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So any law you disagree with is not really a law in your opinion? Let me know how that works out for you.



And as I have now pointed out twice, to override a Presidential veto (if you take a legislative approach) still requires the vote of 2/3 of each Chamber of Congress...or to put it simply, 67 senators.. the same as would be required for a Constitutional Amendment. Either way, the votes do not exist.

thats how Rick works, if he does not agree...then the facts are wrong!

 

[dogtowner]

Ok who is the victim? If they are not taking govenment money like previously established. Who is the victim? Who is harmed?

Ask states wit the most severe illegal alien problems how many billions they have to spend on them. That's billions with a B.

 

[Rick]

"Wide disagreement among informed people" does not mean the law no longer applies..it just means there is a debate surrounding the issue.

You're just wrong - in the past people have ignored erroneous USSC rulings - eg when FDR tried the nazi saboteurs before a military commission, the contrary (and erroneous) ruling on it by the USSC notwithstanding. The ultimate law in the US is the constitution, not the supreme court.

As for reading up.. I am well aware of the arguments surrounding the debate, my point (as it was all along) is that a change in that law has little hope of passing anytime in the near future.

Excuse me but you don't SOUND like you're aware, and you continue to offer no proof for your other claim.

"Unconstitutional rulings" according to who? You?

Yes, andd many other informed people.

I do find it somewhat interesting that a majority of people (in your link) would support giving illegal immigrants who serve two years in the military citizenship.

I don't - it just means many people are kept dumb and uninformed on the issue and its side effects and consequences by the titanic lib media.

 

[BigRob]

You're just wrong - in the past people have ignored erroneous USSC rulings - eg when FDR tried the nazi saboteurs before a military commission, the contrary (and erroneous) ruling on it by the USSC notwithstanding.

...The Supreme Court backed FDR's authority to try the Nazi members associated with Operation Pastorius before military tribunals.

The ultimate law in the US is the constitution, not the supreme court.

Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But the supreme law of the land is not the "Constitution according to Rick."

Excuse me but you don't SOUND like you're aware, and you continue to offer no proof for your other claim.

Even Congressman King who introduced the legislation has stated there is at most a remote chance. I really don't see how you think all of this will take place:

A) A Senate Majority Leader from a border state (Democrat) will allow such legislation to even come to the floor.
B) Assuming it does come to the floor, you will need to reach 60 votes to get past a filibuster...
C) Since there are only 47 Republicans in the Senate, (assuming you got complete support here), who are the other 13 Senators you are thinking you will pick up?
D) The White House has already issued public statements on the matter in complete opposition... you can therefore, assuming you pull off a miracle, expect a Presidential veto.
E) After the bill is vetoed, you then have to come up with an additional 7 Senators to override that veto. So you need to basically find 20 Democrats in the Senate who are going to support this legislative change...good luck.

And all of this completely ignores the political climate in the House as well. Just because someone has a R behind their name does not mean they will get behind this without getting something back.

Yes, andd many other informed people.

And many informed people disagree...ultimately the decision does not rest with "informed people" unless they are on the Supreme Court or have the votes in Congress to enact change.