AZ wants to stop issuing birth certificates to anchor babies

[cindy25]

this has to be the stupidest law ever proposed

states don't grant citizenship

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1996064,00.html?xid=huffpo-direct

[Icymudpuppy]

States don't grant citizenship, but a birth certificate is proof of citizenship. No birth cert, no proof, hence, no citizenship.

[Jace]

Ron Paul:

I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.

[Pauls' Revere]

Long overdue. Why should you be a citizen based on birth? Heck I could be a citizen of Mexico if i'd like. All I need is some paperwork, reside for five years and learn spanish and some Mexican history.


Anyone who is not a Mexican citizen can apply for citizenship only after meeting certain criteria. If an individual resides in Mexico for 5 years, he can apply for citizenship. However, if the individual was a citizen of a Latin American or Iberian peninsula country, the residency time is only 2 years. The only other exceptions are for people of direct Mexican descent or if a person marries a Mexican citizen. The only other main factor in receiving citizenship is the ability to speak and write Spanish and have a basic understanding of Mexican history.

Read more: About Mexican Citizenship | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_4674913_mexican-citizenship.html#ixzz0qnY0j6wR

[cindy25]

that is the right way to do it.

even countries such as UK and NZ that do not give citizenship based on being born there still issue a birth certificate.


Ron Paul:

I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.

[Pauls' Revere]

How about an I.Q. test?

[susano]

This is sheer brilliance on the part of Arizona. Until they secede, they cannot deny citizenship, but they CAN deny a birth certificate because that comes from local gov. No BC, no welfare. Live becomes VERY difficult and the illegal moves to LA.

lol

[cindy25]

and suppose Mexico retaliates. No Mexican birth certificate=no US embassy birth certificate so American children born in Mexico would be in limbo

plus it violates the International Rights of a Child, which is probably a treaty obligation. the American citizen child, and yes they are American citizens, would also be denied equal protection.

[tnvoter]

Ron Paul:

I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.

love Dr. Paul

[susano]

Oh, screw the UN. This is about states rights, which Arizona is pushing.

It's not our concern if someone has a baby in Mexico and how it's documented ot not.

[low preference guy]

and suppose Mexico retaliates. No Mexican birth certificate=no US embassy birth certificate so American children born in Mexico would be in limbo

plus it violates the International Rights of a Child, which is probably a treaty obligation. the American citizen child, and yes they are American citizens, would also be denied equal protection.

what's your source for the claim that not giving a birth certificate violates the "International Rights of a Child"?

[cindy25]

a constitutional amendment has no chance of passing.

2/3 of the senate=impossible

38 state legislatures also impossible

[Dr.3D]

Oh, screw the UN. This is about states rights, which Arizona is pushing.

It's not our concern if someone has a baby in Mexico and how it's documented ot not.

Exactly, it's not like a U.S. citizen is trying to get their child a Mexican citizenship. As long as Mom and Dad are citizens of the U.S. it doesn't matter where the child is born or even if the child has a birth certificate in the foreign country they were born in.

[cindy25]

what's your source for the claim that not giving a birth certificate violates the "International Rights of a Child"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate

he right of every child to a name and nationality, and the responsibility of national governments to achieve this are contained in Articles 7 and 8 in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: “All children have the right to a legally registered name, and nationality” (CRC Article 7) and "Governments should respect children's right to a name, a nationality and family ties” (CRC Article 8).[3]

[susano]

Hopefully, in the near future, there won't be a federal govt anymore, and this point will be moot.

[cindy25]

Exactly, it's not like a U.S. citizen is trying to get their child a Mexican citizenship. As long as Mom and Dad are citizens of the U.S. it doesn't matter where the child is born or even if the child has a birth certificate in the foreign country they were born in.

1) Mexican dual citizenship might be useful 18 years from now. Canada is better but Mexican "draft insurance" better than no draft insurance.

2) The US embassy will not grant a passport without a birth certificate. so the child and parents would be in some limbo in Mexico

[Pauls' Revere]

and suppose Mexico retaliates. No Mexican birth certificate=no US embassy birth certificate so American children born in Mexico would be in limbo

plus it violates the International Rights of a Child, which is probably a treaty obligation. the American citizen child, and yes they are American citizens, would also be denied equal protection.

mom has nine months (in most cases) to make up thier minds and move to where baby is born.

[low preference guy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate

he right of every child to a name and nationality, and the responsibility of national governments to achieve this are contained in Articles 7 and 8 in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: “All children have the right to a legally registered name, and nationality” (CRC Article 7) and "Governments should respect children's right to a name, a nationality and family ties” (CRC Article 8).[3]

everything that someone else does for you is not a "right". for example, freedom of expression is a right. it doesn't mean that people should listen to you or give you a microphone, it just means that no one can use aggression against you to prevent you from speaking. if someone needs to actively do something for you, like giving you a birth certificate, you're talking about a phony "right".

also, does the Federal Government have the authority to sign a contract in which it agrees to do something that is under the authority of the states? no.

giving a birth certificate is a power kept by the states and the people, so whatever agreement the Federal Government makes on the issue is invalid.

[cindy25]

the federal government has the right to enter into treaties, ratified by 2/3 of the senate

[low preference guy]

the federal government has the right to enter into treaties, ratified by 2/3 of the senate

but they can't write anything in the treaty. they can't violate the constitution. if the treaty says that the president can deprive individuals from their free speech rights at will, is the treaty valid? of course not. any other infringement, such as usurping powers of states, violate the Constitution and render the treaty void.

[Kregisen]

I agree with low preference guy.


Living in Arizona my whole life, without actually reading this bill I think I like it.

Illegals are everywhere down here, and a bill like this can help deter it so our border control can focus more on drug smugglers until we actually get national guard to secure the border.

[Stary Hickory]

Sounds like a fine law to me. Immigration is a problem and ought to be dealt with. The only acceptable form of imigration is legal immigration. Until such a time when the world and nations no longer need borders there will be a need to maintain them.

[free1]

but they can't write anything in the treaty. they can't violate the constitution. if the treaty says that the president can deprive individuals from their free speech rights at will, is the treaty valid? of course not. any other infringement, such as usurping powers of states, violate the Constitution and render the treaty void.
How dare you make sense!

Why do people think the federal government is some sort of all powerful entity?

The commerce clause is what they use to make you think they are all powerful, but the only reason that works is because you stupid idiots keep signing things that say you are a United States subject class citizen, government property, and thus in commerce everywhere you go. Get a clue people, PLEASE!