H.R.1868 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. as introduced.
  • Short: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 140 total comments.

DanKat 12/30/2010 1:09pm
in reply to laurenms Sep 17, 2009 6:52pm

Oh yes, just like the child born into an abusive household. It’s not his fault his parents (American Citizens) are drug addicts and abuse him throughout his childhood. However he becomes an adult and makes bad choices, commits crimes and goes to jail.
He suffered hardships because of his parents’ choices. He had absolutely no say in how his parents conducted themselves and their lives. He can’t be blamed for his parents’ actions. Because of his parents choices, he suffers.
But, as an adult he must make choices to better his life despite what his parents foisted upon him by their selfishness. Same with illegal’s babies. When you become an adult, you become responsible for your own life and your own actions. You can’t sit back and whine and cry that it’s not fair or it’s not your fault! That’s just too liberal!!

DanKat 12/30/2010 12:59pm
in reply to apache01 Jul 28, 2009 5:36am

Okay, what is the pregnant one doing traveling at a time like that when she is about to give birth? Sounds like an ulterior motive to me.

I agree – Hell no.

DanKat 12/30/2010 12:53pm
in reply to fishfry001 May 13, 2010 7:56pm

Really. Just go into an Emergency Room in a major US city. Illegals can go ahead of Citizens who are paying for their own services.

DanKat 12/30/2010 12:50pm
in reply to jtbull46 Nov 02, 2009 9:03am

Exactly – the 14th Amendment is being exploited for illegal immigrants – you know, new Democrat voters.

Encouraging self-deportation is easy by cutting off freebies, no work at the sake of Americans working, and oh yeah by eliminating automatic citizenship to the illegal offspring of illegal immigrants.

It does seem to be a traitorous way of thinking. Very anti-American.

csusbstudent 12/07/2010 12:33pm
in reply to dihayden29 Aug 05, 2010 3:28pm

The founders of this country were not illegal immigrants. Citizenship by nature does not exist, it is created by law. There was no requirement for citizenship in the 1600s so there was no way anyone could be illegal. Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

dvd2003 11/14/2010 4:12pm

“709 in favor / 290 opposed”
Of the 290 who oppose what is your reason for opposition?
I’m doing a report and I need to provide an argument for both sides.
I tried looking up on Google and I only found people that support the act.

sk1951 10/23/2010 7:08pm

OpenCongress Summary
This bill would eliminate birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Current U.S. law automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as a natural born citizen.

This wording is wrong. the 14th amendment babies are native born.

jasonguthrie 09/19/2010 6:46am
in reply to dihayden29 Aug 05, 2010 3:28pm

I’ve seen this forefathers argument multiple times now. I agree that this country would be nothing without the “illegal” aliens that first came to this country. But why is it so wrong to change our opinions/laws/regulations based on new facts or circumstances? Our forefathers were great men, but even they were not able to imagine the state of our country today.

rangerbrig 08/14/2010 7:27am
in reply to rangerbrig Aug 14, 2010 7:26am
  • In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” *

- from http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

rangerbrig 08/14/2010 7:26am
in reply to roxrunner Oct 12, 2009 8:25am

This bill is NOT an amendment to the Constitution it does not change the language of the 14th amendment it only clarifies it. Which is a shame because the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” seem pretty clear to me. It is also clear to me that the original intent of the writers of the 14th amendment WAS NOT to allow a loophole to citizenship.

dihayden29 08/05/2010 3:28pm
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to MariaNJ Apr 29, 2010 8:41pm

The reason to not be motivated to be assimilated in an incredibly cold, critical and prejudice society is a strong one. I don’t blame them do you? Would you want to be assimilated to the society described above? Would you want to change everything you are, believe and stand for in order to be accepted by the society described above? Would that be worth your time, effort and energy for such a drastic 360 degree change to your person? How would you answer these questions?

Millions of Americans today have ancestry with these “illegal immigrants” that formed and founded this Grand Nation. Are you now slamming our Forefathers who by the way, had their parents come “illegally” as Pilgrims to Plymouth Rock? Back in the 1600’s, there was no government or official government buildings where you’re supposed to register yourself as a “legal citizen”. There was nothing but dirt, trees, and rivers. Read US History.

dihayden29 08/05/2010 3:27pm
Link Reply
+ -3
in reply to MariaNJ Apr 29, 2010 8:09pm

How about this? You go to France because you love their culture and the people. But then you see they completely ostricize you for the fact you speak English and not French. But you havent been able to pick up the language on your own very well… Seriously, have you tried to learn another language besides English? They reject you for wearing your USA colors or waving the American flag… Then you realize you have no francs (French currency) just American dollars which of course is not accepted to buy a loaf of bread just because you’re hungry. They laugh at you saying in French “What do you expect a freebee because you’re new to this country?!” “Learn French first buddy!”

Doesn’t this sound familiar to you at all? Wouldn’t this be the same thing “illegals” go thru in this country?

dihayden29 08/05/2010 2:41pm
in reply to GeneralFault Jul 14, 2010 3:27pm

According to this logic, its the same as saying “Hey, Soviet Union and North Korea get 1 child per couple period. Let’s do that in the United States!” Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?

GeneralFault 07/14/2010 3:27pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to KISS May 31, 2010 8:44am

Sorry, but this simply does not pass the logic test. And it is not what the article states (the article singles out a single hospital where 70% of births are to illegal immigrants) .
The official count of illegal immigrants in CA is around 2.7 million. http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/data/
If you were to assume a 50% female population, that makes around 1.4 million illegal women in CA.
California has around 600,000 births per year. So those 1.4 million women would need to have approximately 1 birth every 4 years. Even assuming your alarmist point of view, to make those numbers CA citizen women of birthing age (numbering around 11.6 million) http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
could only have one child every 39 years, or only about one child per mother. However CA has nearly 1.9 children per household http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2009.html, your “fact” simply is not possible.

Watchemoket 07/14/2010 12:14pm
in reply to AlphaOmega Jun 01, 2009 10:07am

How can you be so blindly ignorant?
The phrase is “subject TO the jurisdiction thereof” not “subject OF the jurisdiction thereof” (which would be grammatically incorrect anyway).
If you think that only citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA or its states, then you must also think that illegals can’t be prosecuted for violating our laws.
PLEASE take a remedial English course!

Watchemoket 07/14/2010 12:00pm
in reply to Americafirst Aug 02, 2009 7:54pm

As I replied to another poster above, that phrase does not mean ‘subject’ in the same sense as ‘citizen’ – it refers to a person being required to obey the laws. If the drafters intended the Amendment to mean what you claim, they would have said “and A subject thereof”.
This differentiates ordinary people from those here with (for example) diplomatic immunity. An Ambassador (and his/her family) are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US or any state. A foreign Ambassador’s child, born in the US, would NOT become a US (or state) citizen by operation ot the 14th Amendment.

Watchemoket 07/14/2010 11:53am
in reply to Americafirst Feb 21, 2010 5:38pm

So you think that an illegal immigrant who commits a crime in the US is not subject to the jurisdiction of the state in which the crime was committed, or to the application of federal laws (i.e., immigration laws) because they are “not the subject of the USA”?
Any person present in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal and appropriate state and local governments. The word ‘subject’ as used in the 14th Amendment is not a synonym for “citizen” – it means required to obey the laws, etc.

pramsey 07/07/2010 3:17am
in reply to kevinmcc Jul 01, 2010 11:15am

“Comprehensive Immigration Reform” is a code phrase for “Amnesty for all”

kevinmcc 07/01/2010 11:15am

Can we change the title to Comprehensive Immigration Reform?

bblouse 06/16/2010 6:57am

Our politicians just don’t care. They’re in it for their own personal gain.

MissGG52 06/14/2010 8:28am
in reply to eagle Jun 13, 2009 5:15am

Our politicians can do just as they have with the laws on illegal immigration, just turn a blind eye to it all. This bill is better than what we presently have but it opens the door to too many illegals, once again. Just when it “looks” like something is being done that the majority of Americans support, there is always a “loophole” for them to slide through.

MissGG52 06/14/2010 8:03am
in reply to pramsey Jul 25, 2009 9:28am

“An ALIEN performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.” This means anyone who is not a U.S. Citizen. And this sure opens the door to undocumented illegals. There are 12 to 20 million Mexican illegals in our country, it would be EASY for them to be in the military.
Official Summary
4/2/2009—Introduced.Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 – Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is:
(1) a U.S. citizen or national;
(2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or
(3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

KISS 05/31/2010 8:53am
in reply to qldaustralia Sep 29, 2009 11:40am

Your argument is to govern prior to Constitutional law!

Get over your anger and ego.

That was then, this is now. America is governed by laws.

Citzenship rights need to be clarified so prevent this situation of illegally crossing our borders to steal benefits paid for by lawful citizens. They are thieves.

KISS 05/31/2010 8:44am
in reply to qldaustralia Sep 29, 2009 11:38am

I don’t see where Raysmock implies “all undocumented immigrants come over here to have babies” Trying to put words into someone’s mouth to distract from the point of the argument?

Read for yourself, a majority of births in CA hospitals are of undocumented mothers. They come to CA to work the farms, maybe come illegally with their bf or husbands, it doesn’t matter. They are here illegally and costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters4608

KISS 05/31/2010 8:39am
in reply to qldaustralia Sep 29, 2009 11:37am

You obviously have internet skills, so it appears you choose to be stubborn. You can easily find stats on anchor babies and chain migration.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters4608

ControlFreaks 05/25/2010 8:25pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to donnyshaw May 29, 2009 8:05am

“…..subject to the jurisdiction thereof……”.

That’s exactly correct. There is not a single ILLEGAL ALIEN that is, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the country that their parents came from, because once the parents are deported, that child will be a citizen of that country.

ControlFreaks 05/25/2010 8:00pm
in reply to Waytwofast May 30, 2009 8:54am

That’s right. “….and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,……”.

The wetbacks are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States!

They are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. This is the very reason that the Kenyan-born Village Idiot is not eligible to serve as president of this country.

bblouse 05/21/2010 3:48pm

The key word in all of this is ILLEGAL. They are here illegally, against the law for those who don’t know the meaning of the word, and neither they or their offspring have a right to citizenship or benefits of such. If that violates the 14th ammendment, THEN CHANGE IT! If “We the people” put it there, then “We the people” can take it away.

Oldentimes 05/19/2010 5:07am
in reply to Oldentimes May 19, 2010 4:53am

It can be done, Congress can exercise their constitutional section 5 powers under the 14th

Citizenship of birthright is and can be questionable due to the allegiance to America of the illegal parents.

Oldentimes 05/19/2010 4:53am
in reply to donnyshaw May 29, 2009 8:05am

It can be done it’s up to congress to exersise their constituitional power
to modify as needed the provisions of this article.


Vote on This Bill

71% Users Support Bill

740 in favor / 306 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments