WN: Huckabee vows to defy birthright citizenship - Washington Times

[WorthyNewsBot]

Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens, according to his top immigration surrogate -- a radical step no other major presidential candidate has embraced.

http://www.worthynews.com/news/washingtont...311698216-1001/

[O'Dannyboy]

Another reason I like him.

[Guest LadyC]

i'll support that!

[tah]

Isn't that a common practice..if you are born in a country you are it's citizen?

Does it not also make you a citizen of the country of your parents?

[Guest LadyC]

yes... but huckabee's position is to stop allowing it. i think that considering how many illegals cross the border after going into labor just for the sole purpose of making sure their babies are born on american soil (and at the expense of american taxpayers), it's a great position.

[SanDiegoCA]

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

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.

It will require a constitution amemdment to change the law..I do not see that happening very soon. So it is more political rhetoric than a presidental executive order. He just tickling the ear of the voters.

[~pearl]

It may not ever happen but its good and a step in the right direction.

[SanDiegoCA]

The statutes that make up the UK constitution can be amended by a simple act of Parliament.

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. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

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, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)

Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.

[Guest LadyC]

thanks for the info sandiego.

so ok, his desire to deny citizenship to the babies that illegals force upon our hospitals at birth is a pointless waste of time. i'm not in favor of changing the constitution. but since that is his desire, it stands to reason he'd do what he could, such as making it impossible for foreigners in their third trimester to get day visas. i'll settle for that.

[kat8585]

I'd be in favor of changing the comstitution if it would stop this.

There is already a bill in the House to stop anchor babies. It's H1940. I don't know how it's doing.