Are YOU aware of the HR 1940 Bill that's proposed and what it means?

Question

HR 1940 would end the practice of granting automatic citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. Nearly every other country, including all members of the European Union, requires that at least one parent be a citizen or permanent resident for a child to automatically become a citizen.
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA), would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate birthright citizenship.
Our current policy results in over 300,000 additional citizens from anchor babies each year. The demographic impact is far greater because their families stay and bring in additional relatives. Anchor babies are eligible to sponsor their illegal alien parents and other relatives when they turn 21. Moreover, taxpayers pick up the tab for the medical costs and subsequent welfare outlays because of the child's citizenship status.
The 14th Amendment, passed to guarantee the citizenship of freed slaves, grants citizenship to anyone born here and "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. HR 1940 acknowledges the right of birthright citizenship established by the 14th amendment to the Constitution, but says a person born in the United States is considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States only if one of the parents is a citizen, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent, or an alien performing active service in the armed forces.
I realize there are some here on this forum who are pro-amnesty/immigration and many others who are anti. Nevertheless, whichever way you might feel, this is your opportunity to speak out and be heard. Follow this link and it will direct you to your representatives.

http://capwiz.com/caps/issues/alert/?alertid=10247066&type=CO


Will you let your voice be heard?

Answer 1

I think it's a grand idea !!

I will visit the link . Thank you .

Answer 2

Be careful what you wish for. If this bill were to be presented "as is", I would wholeheartedly agree with it, due to the current state of immigration, illegal aliens, our welfare system, etc. However, as with every other bill, by the time it reaches the voting arena (after this rep. adds a bit of this and that senator adds a bit of that) it will no longer resemble the proposal.

"As is" is very important. I have done some research on how some absurd bills came to be accepted. I'm still sitting here with my jaw grazing the floor. In order to make everyone happy they will change the proposal as they always do and we won't really be getting what we thought we were. It will be another absurd bill if it passes. I do not see it getting that far.

I still think if we were to just open up all the borders, (the other country of course would have to accept us as well) there would not be an issue of illegal aliens. It would just be an issue of migration. Just imagine a world that you would be able to live and work where you want.

Unfortunately, with my" happy ever after" proposal, comes bigger issues (how to govern such a world). It's a no win for now.

Answer 3

Interesting point you bring up. I would like to know just what happened with the story of the nurses in the Dearborn MI hospital that reported the unusual number of middle eastern women showing up to have their babies with what can only be described as very suspicious identification. Questionable, due to the fact that none ever spoke english, could not read their own papers, and had no idea what a social security card was. As soon as they were released, they were seen by witnesses boarding planes back to the middle east. All this occured in about a years time after 9-11. Nothing more has been said.

Answer 4

While clearly establishing a national rule on national citizenship and settling a controversy of long standing with regard to the derivation of national citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude . . . shall have the same right[s]

Answer 5

There are no visas granted to those who don't have a sponsor who earns wages, so the assumption that they are on welfare is false. The majority on welfare are white Americans.

I think we should be concerning ourselves with dual citizenship, especially the dual citizenship of officials who represent us holding Israeli and US citizenship. We can not have a non - partial government when it comes to the Middle East when there are biased Zionists who have influence.

Answer 6

This is a law that makes sense on the surface for many reasons.

However, I live in southern California and this would be devastating almost to the construction, farming, and restaurant businesses. The construction industry would be hit hard for a short time but this gap of current workers would be filled fast.

I meet in a lot of migrant workers and US born Hispanics in the construction field.

I will bet money that many California businesses will fight this law tooth and nail. They will most likely use lobbyists to water this law down but it will be interesting to see what happens. I think if we could make low wage worker visas easier to get, that may help. But this is something that will create a new area of fraudulent papers. I wonder if they do pass the law, will it allow for a grandfather clause? (i.e., those born here prior to the law would be eligible for citizenship). If it doesn't at least have a grandfather clause it is most likely to cause riots in East and South Los Angeles and many adjacent areas. If businesses are fined, as has been proposed by many, it will hurt a lot of small and medium sized businesses. If the law passes I think many illegal aliens currently here will get fake IDs and some will have to result in illegal activities to put food on the table.

So I think if the law doesn't have a grandfather clause we will see a big rise in crime where I live. I do like the idea of having a law like this but I think we have to think about the large numbers here that will be affected. We should create an affective and eforcable method/plan to deal with the current illegals or we will end up with problems and further clog our all ready cloged legal system, courts, and jails.

One thing I see happen a lot, is how hard it is for some of these people to get a valid drivers license. Then they get ticket for no license and often times no insurance. The financial hit for them is very hard to overcome. Most times they have not registered their cars and the police will also impound those. When living from paycheck to paycheck it is impossible to overcome the odds and they often have to buy another car and hope they don't get pulled over. Most police (especially here in So Cal) do not currently check for valid citizenship or VISA.

This actually happened to me with the insurance thing, when the law first started. I was just given a hand me down car about 20 years ago and got pulled over and cited for no insurance. Crazy part was I had a company truck that I was allowed to use for personal use also. I even had a signed company letterhead yet because the way the law was written I could not get my license back until I had "personal insurance" - (SR22?) Being the young punk I was, I felt the law was unjust and I refused to pay $800 dollars a year for something I should not need. I ended up getting 3 or 4 tickets for driving on a suspended license. One of those times I had a public defender and I ended up serving 30 days in jail on work furlough. The other times I represented myself and served no time after I spoke with the District Attorney (DA) and explained why I felt the law was unjust and showed that I was indeed insured. The DA threw the case out and I didn’t have to pay a dime or time.

One thing I don't agree with is taking peoples cars for some of these violations. The second thing I don’t agree with is the amount the fines are. For medium income it isn't that bad. But lower incomes it is devastating. I wish we would do our traffic fines more like they do in Germany. In Germany the fine is based on your income level. This is a much more just system for low income earners. Also it hits the rich hard enough that they would be less likely to speed or drink and drive etc.

Answer 7

HR 1940 Bill is long overdue. Granting citizenship with no more regard than throwing confetti out a window is no way to run a country. The United States needs more people who can contribute to our competitive position in the world.

Imagine the United States is an NFL team, and because of our position, we get the #1 round draft choice. We can choose anyone we want, and they all want to be part of our team. What are we doing? We're figuratively saying, "Aw heck, it doesn't matter if we get the prized quarterback or another water boy. It's all the same."

That's no way to run a sports team, and certainly no way to run a country. Both are doomed to failure.

Answer 8

Told both my Senator to add their weight behind it as California voted for Prop 187. (I know they will not) I also email my rep in Congress. & gave you the only Star I've given.

Answer 9

I think its a good idea. Not surprisingly thats Ron Pauls position as well. I know my brother could have been a German having been born there the rules may have changed in the interim.

Answer 10

AWESOME! I will encourage my reps to vote for it, however it is probably a lost cause with the freaky loons that represent me--but if we rally enough support.....who knows, maybe this is the vote that will finally enrage the people in my state to vote the idiots OUT!!!

Answer 11

I have thought this practice was wrong WAY before we had 12 million illegals in this country! I will go to the link and write my Congressmen. THANKS!