GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship

[spartacus2002]

If we can get past the flag-waving mom-and-apple-pie-tear-in-the-eye rhetoric and think about what this measure is intended to address, the reasoning and justification becomes a little more understandable.

This measure is intended to prevent anchor babies. Whether it takes an Amendment or statute is a process question. The predicate issue is the substantive question of what this is intended to address.

I would have no problem with US citizenship being more than mama sneaking across the border before she goes into labor. Make it a requirement that at least one parent be a US citizen, or if neither parent is a US citizen, then demonstrate the parent or parents are here legally.

The "papers please" rhetoric is weak when we are talking about controlling illegal immigration. How about some cogent arguments why this is a bad thing?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

How about some cogent arguments why this is a bad thing?

Nobody said changing the citizenship requirements is a bad thing.

However, changing them by violating the Constitution is a bad thing, and should not be minimized as a process problem.

The Constitution needs to be amended to prevent anchor babies. Anything else would be illegal.

 

[Cosmoline]

Repeal the fourteenth amendment! Sounds fine to me, but how about just show how it was illegally ratified - might be easier.

That's brilliant. You realize that the 14th is what makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, don't you? You can kiss the 2nd Amendment and the 1st goodbye without the 14th.

The arguments about the 14th not having been fully ratified are bogus, and have been knocked down by every court that's heard them.

 

[longeyes]

The 14th Amendment was aimed at extending citizenship to former slaves, not to legitmate or abet illegal immigration.

 

[Cosmoline]

The "papers please" rhetoric is weak when we are talking about controlling illegal immigration. How about some cogent arguments why this is a bad thing?

OK, how would you go about enforcing such a ban? Are you advocating having hospitals do a check on citizenship? What about the many, many people who are born in houses? Who checks on them? Can citizenship you thought you had be retracted because someone finds out your parents were illegals? It's a hideous, un-American idea. In America the crimes of your parents should not matter. Everyone gets a fresh start here.

 

[Biker]

I'm loathe to change anything about the constitution, but where in this document does it say that we can't deport the parents while giving them the choice of taking their child or leaving it here?
Biker

 

[R.H. Lee]

Maybe the spinelessrepublicans are finally getting the message.

The Constitution needs to be amended to prevent anchor babies. Anything else would be illegal.

Maybe not. What does the Constitution say about citizenship? I'm too lazy and apathetic to look it up. If you're a citizen simply by virtue of your birth here, maybe the interpretation needs to be expanded to mean that you must be born to parents lawfully on American soil.

 

[Cosmoline]

The 14th Amendment was aimed at extending citizenship to former slaves, not to legitmate or abet illegal immigration.

So what? It says what it says:

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.

That's pretty fricking clear, I'd say.

 

[LAR-15]

The 14th Amendment is NOT about illegal Mexicans.

Sorry.

Only an idiot would claim that.

 

[Cosmoline]

Maybe the spinelessrepublicans are finally getting the message.

Maybe not. What does the Constitution say about citizenship? I'm too lazy and apathetic to look it up. If you're a citizen simply by virtue of your birth here, maybe the interpretation needs to be expanded to mean that you must be born to parents lawfully on American soil.

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.

LEARN IT, LOVE IT, LIVE IT!!!

The Constitution also says

no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

What you are advocating is the corruption of blood be imposed on not just the sons of traitors but the sons of illegals. It is FAR WORSE than anything the British did. Indeed, you are advocating not just some restrictions on owning property but on citizenship itself!

 

[Krenn]

so, the solution to illegal aliens is to create MORE Illegal aliens? If they're citizens, they're entitled to minimum wage, social security, etc, etc.

if they're suddenly NOT citizens, they'll generate all the same problems as their parents.

I REALLY don't want citizenship in the USA to become more complicated than providing a birth certificate.

I'd read "..and subject to the jurisidction thereof" to mean that it does NOT apply to Embassies, foreign ships in port, aircraft merely passing over the nation, and a few other such exceptions. If you can be readily arrested by US police, you're subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.

Now the fence isn't a bad idea... although I prefer a few variations...

1. don't build a barrier, build an obstacle course. Dragons teeth to prevent vehicles from crossing the border, UAV's on patrol, water stations monitored by hidden cameras, mazes, rivers... if you build a flat wall, they'll go around it, over it, or under it. If you build a defense in depth, they'll advance, and be stopped at SOME point in the defense.

2. don't send them back to the border. put them on a bulk freighter that's been outfitted with the basic anmenities, and drop them off at the FAR side of mexico. The time and energy needed to recross the country will be more of a detterent than a slap on the wrist by the mexican authorities.

3. Set a Legal Residency fee that's significantly less than border smugglers charge. anyone willing to pay the annual fee, and who passes a background check, can stay indefinitly. used right, that fee could negate a LOT of the problems that illegal immegration creates. lower federal taxes for the rest of us, have the ability to track all inhabitants to a reasonable degree, give them a greater reason to want to stay as naturalized citizens... and kill immegration quotas. you pay the fee, you're welcome.

 

[Cosmoline]

The 14th Amendment is NOT about illegal Mexicans.

Sorry.

Only an idiot would claim that.

What part of "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." don't you understand?

 

[HD]

simple solution...

execution of ALL illegals from ANYWHERE esp. those who commit even the smallest criminal action while here , no appeal , no mercy , they are criminal invaders ...

 

[shootinstudent]

Changing citizenship from a birthright to some other standard like "If your parents were American citizens so are you" is a dumb idea. The language came into the 14th amendment specifically to refute the Dred Scott legal notion that blacks, by virtue of having been descended from slaves and not having full legal rights, were not citizens. Changing the constitution to some other standard would be absolutely ridiculous....what if a pair of illegal immigrants manage to evade detection, have kids, and then their kids slip through the loop also and have kids themselves?


You will end up with absolutely absurd situations where people who have lived in the US for their entire lives and have no connection to another country get booted because of what their parents or grandparents did.

This "maybe we can do it by statute" claim is even worse. All people who sit physically within the boundaries of the US, except for diplomats, are subject to its jurisdiction. If they weren't, you couldn't haul an illegal, for example, to court for a crime or a lawsuit, because he'd able to say "I'm not subject to this court's jurisdiction!".

Silliness all around, but I'm not surprised Tancredo's name is associated with it. He seems to have a penchant for supporting bad ideas and using extremist rhetoric.

simple solution...
execution of ALL illegals from ANYWHERE esp. those who commit even the smallest criminal action while here , no appeal , no mercy , they are criminal invaders ...

I thank my lucky stars that I live in a country civilized enough to laugh this plan off the table at every level of government. I suggest you find a country that is more in tune with your apparent notion of good government, like North Korea.

 

[Cosmoline]

execution of ALL illegals from ANYWHERE esp. those who commit even the smallest criminal action while here , no appeal , no mercy , they are criminal invaders ...

How about execution of anyone who HIRES illegals? I like that idea better. Nothing is more disgusting that some American driving by the Mexicans and shouting "dos!" so he can avoid having to pay for licensed workers. Bullet to the brainpan, I say! Kill the gringo.

 

[Gordon Fink]

How many 09/11/01s will it take to show that our borders must be closed and our nation must be changed to become more security consciousness?

There are many 3rd World nations with better border control than the United States!

The September 11th terrorists entered the United States on perfectly legal visas. They succeeded in their attacks because we have already given up too many of our freedoms.

Those Third World states you so admire are almost certainly not places I would want to live.

~G. Fink

 

[longeyes]

All people who sit physically within the boundaries of the US, except for diplomats, are subject to its jurisdiction.

Illegals are entitled to legal protections, not to benefits and privileges reserved to legal residents and citizens. That's my position, likely shared by most outside the illlegal alien constituency and their advocates.

 

[shootinstudent]

Illegals are entitled to legal protections, not to benefits and privileges reserved to legal residents and citizens. That's my position, likely shared by most outside the illlegal alien constituency and their advocates.

Jurisdiction is not a "benefit and privilege." It has a plain meaning, and unless you think that illegals cannot be tried for crimes, sued for damages, or even brought to deportation courts legally, then you have to concede that even they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

There is absolutely no way to read "jurisdiction" in a way that is consistent with your interpretation. Jurisdiction means very simply that a Court has power over you. If it doesn't, it can't say anything to or about you.

 

[Solo]

How many 09/11/01s will it take to show that our borders must be closed and our nation must be changed to become more security consciousness?

Freedom is dangerous. Live with it.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Let's just get a LOT more proactive about deporting illegals before they can procreate on this side of the border.

 

[longeyes]

Jurisdiction is not a "benefit and privilege." It has a plain meaning, and unless you think that illegals cannot be tried for crimes, sued for damages, or even brought to deportation courts legally, then you have to concede that even they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

There is absolutely no way to read "jurisdiction" in a way that is consistent with your interpretation. Jurisdiction means very simply that a Court has power over you. If it doesn't, it can't say anything to or about you.

I know what jurisdiction means. Of course illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That doesn't mean we have to accord them the full rights and privileges of U.S. citizens.

All of this is, frankly, academic. The way things are going illegals and their offspring will, de facto, lose their rights and privileges in due course. They will increasingly become persona non grata, as, I predict, will their friends and advocates.

 

[Cosmoline]

Illegals are entitled to legal protections, not to benefits and privileges reserved to legal residents and citizens. That's my position, likely shared by most outside the illlegal alien constituency and their advocates.

Fine. But someone BORN HERE is not an illegal.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Bottom line is, we're our own worst enemy, and we deserve what we're gonna get.

 

[spartacus2002]

Fine. But someone BORN HERE is not an illegal.

In my book, if their parents are here illegally, then their child should not automatically be granted US citizenship. At the very least, deport it and the parents instead of allowing it to be the anchor to allow mom and dad to remain, who then bring over grandparents, and so forth.

Instead of allowing yourself to be clouded by emotion, try to understand that the anchor babies are the most potent weapon that Mexico has in its de facto Reconquista.

 

[Cosmoline]

Deport the BABY? Good grief. That's not only unconstitutional, it's sick and wrong. I have this little document called the Constitution I'm relying on. So far nobody has been able to counter it.

IF YOU ARE BORN HERE YOU ARE A CITIZEN. It's in the Constitution. If you don't like it, leave.

If you want to deport the parents, fine. They're breaking the law. But the kid is American by birth, same as me. Any LEO's who start tossing babies born in the US over the fence should be killed on the spot.