GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship

[dpesec]

Ok, yes we need to do something, what I don;t know.
Changing how citizenship is granted opens a dangerous crack. If the congresscritters can say if you're parents are illegal, you're not a citizen. What about if they decide that you must agree to X to be a citizen. Once the door is cracked it will only expand.

 

[Cosmoline]

The answer is very clear--enforce the laws on the books.

Just like gun control.

If people are sneaking across, build walls and mine the border. It's fully within our rights as a nation to do this, and even to declare imminent domain on a swath of property along the border to do it. Such an action would be within the national interest and 100% legal under all domestic and international law. As a nation we have a right to protect and defend our borders. Period.

If people are HIRING illegal aliens they are breaking not only immigration law but a truckload of tax laws and workers compensation laws. They should be sent to prison for hard time.

To ignore these options and instead try to amend a bedrock aspect of what it means to be American is insane.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The Republicans are very good at mulling; taking action in the real world, however, is something they leave to representatives of the Democratic (sic) party.

 

[longeyes]

Bedrock? No, I don't think so. This "bedrock" was never meant to apply to illegal immigrants. For a long time we didn't pay attention to this principle because we didn't have to, because it wasn't being abused. Now it is, and now it is going to change.

My point is that perception is reality: American citizens are going to come to resent the children of illegal aliens demanding full rights and privileges. They sense the fundamental unfairness of that. You can wave all the documents you want and give them whatever construction you prefer, but I'm simply saying that the way these people will be treated will depend on the broader social and cultural picture. Americans sense their land's being invaded, their sovereignty ruptured, their hospitality profaned, their treasure stolen. Why should the children of illegal immigrants be entitled to privileges that children of American citizens--and that includes, of course, legal immigrants--are denied? It won't wash; only a matter of time before people have really had enough.

 

[Waitone]

A few observations in no particular order

--This thread shows how divided we are on the problem and what needs to be done to fix it.

--Constitutional changes are constitutional. The document itself provides the mechanism for changing the document.

--Emotionalism will do nothing to solve the problem.

--Finally, after 5 years of Bush and 8 years of Clinton the debate is about to start. We will eventually be exposed to all the issues Illegal immigration create. Anchor babies is merely the first of a long list of issues that needs to be exposed and debated.

--If you think unrestricted immigration (legal or illegal) is wise, spend some time scoping out the situation in France as we type, then be aware the same thing could easily happen in the UK and Belgium.

--The battle over illegal immigration has just started and will be extremely divisive.

 

[NickEllis]

+ 1 on enforcing existing laws

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Changing how citizenship is granted opens a dangerous crack. If the congresscritters can say if you're parents are illegal, you're not a citizen. What about if they decide that you must agree to X to be a citizen. Once the door is cracked it will only expand.

I agree with the slippery slope concept described above.

Our politicians have a way of mis-construing simple laws to match their own political goals.

An example of this is seen in this thread. People are trying to exclude birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens by using the clause in the 14th Amendment that says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". They are arguing that since the parents are illegal, citizenship to their children can be excluded. They are ignoring the more obvious statement in the 14th amendment , which says if you are born on US soil, you are a US citizen.

The 14th Amendment is just as clear as the 2nd Amendment, yet some would misconstrue both for their own purposes.

If we exclude birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, how long will it be before some politician decides to exclude birthright citizenship to children of convicted felons?

 

[Waitone]

Its not just so-called liberals who have selective reading of the constitution. Dare suggest congress has the right and obligation of remove the right of appeal from SCOTUS was watch the gymnastics.

It well past time for us to do a fluff and buff on the constitution to put it back into meaningful shape.

 

[garyk/nm]

Biker nailed it. Anchor babies are automatic citizens, no question. The Constitution says so. What it does NOT say is that the parents of said anchor babies get a free pass.
As soon as those parents apply for a birth cert, deport them. Give them the choice of taking the baby with them, or leaving it behind, but they're outta here!
I live in this culture, and I see this every day. Anchor babies are the golden key to the welfare system.

 

[epijunkie67]

"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."

There was a story in the news a few months back about a girl who thought she was an american citizen. Her parents brought her into the country illegaly when she was an infant. She always thought she was an american citizen. A few months ago she went to canada for a summer trip with some high school friends. Had some routine problem at the border and got checked out. They figured out she was illegal and denied her reentry into the US.

Though to be honest she was illegal, she just didn't know it.


And I also agree that just because the baby of an illegal might be a US citizen that doesn't mean the parents should get to stay. Give them a choice. Take the kid back with you or leave it here and we'll put it up for adoption.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Here's an idea: When foreigners immigrate to the US they don't automatically have citizenship status, they have to go through a process and earn it, why not make this standard practice for everyone? By requiring immigrants to earn citizenship and just giving it to someone born here we are essentially discriminating against those not born here, so arent we current holding people accountable for the actions of their parents (not coming here to give birth)

We will pass an amendment to change the law, that way it is Constitutional and we wont have any conflict about that, we will eliminate the anchor baby situation, and people who don't care enough to go through the process like immigrants will not vote.

 

[wingman]

My point is that perception is reality: American citizens are going to come to resent the children of illegal aliens demanding full rights and privileges. They sense the fundamental unfairness of that. You can wave all the documents you want and give them whatever construction you prefer, but I'm simply saying that the way these people will be treated will depend on the broader social and cultural picture. Americans sense their land's being invaded, their sovereignty ruptured, their hospitality profaned, their treasure stolen. Why should the children of illegal immigrants be entitled to privileges that children of American citizens--and that includes, of course, legal immigrants--are denied? It won't wash; only a matter of time before people have really had enough.

+1

 

[RealGun]

The 14th Amendment 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."

The historical context was covering blacks who were brought here by force as slaves. I see that as long having since served its purpose and would simply repeal it. If a provision of the Constitution gets in the way, change it, if you can get the votes. Do not create some rationale why the Constitution doesn't mean what it says or can be ignored.

If there are unintended incentives for illegal immigration, get rid of them. The problem with the Constitution is that it is not very specific.

 

[unixguy]

And I also agree that just because the baby of an illegal might be a US citizen that doesn't mean the parents should get to stay. Give them a choice. Take the kid back with you or leave it here and we'll put it up for adoption.

I'm not that fond of the idea that we'd force families to separate. How about granting citizenship to the baby (as required by the constitution), but deporting the illegal parents anyway (they get to take their child with them, and the child is still a US citizen). The parents still have all the options that any parent would have-- they can give the baby up for adoption if they want, or they can keep the child and raise it in their home country.

 

[epijunkie67]

I'm not that fond of the idea that we'd force families to separate. How about granting citizenship to the baby (as required by the constitution), but deporting the illegal parents anyway (they get to take their child with them, and the child is still a US citizen). The parents still have all the options that any parent would have-- they can give the baby up for adoption if they want, or they can keep the child and raise it in their home country.

How is this different from what I said?

 

[longeyes]

A few observations in no particular order

--This thread shows how divided we are on the problem and what needs to be done to fix it.

--Constitutional changes are constitutional. The document itself provides the mechanism for changing the document.

--Emotionalism will do nothing to solve the problem.

--Finally, after 5 years of Bush and 8 years of Clinton the debate is about to start. We will eventually be exposed to all the issues Illegal immigration create. Anchor babies is merely the first of a long list of issues that needs to be exposed and debated.

--If you think unrestricted immigration (legal or illegal) is wise, spend some time scoping out the situation in France as we type, then be aware the same thing could easily happen in the UK and Belgium.

--The battle over illegal immigration has just started and will be extremely divisive.

Exactly. This is just Act One of this drama.

Underlying all of this is the clarification and reinforcement of fundamental American principles and values, the "culture war." It's about more than just where you were born, more about psychological real estate than just borders.

 

[coylh]

If the Department of Defense would spend more time defending, rather than occupying foreign countries, we'd have enough soldiers to provide for a secure border.

 

[Glock Defender]

Just do what Singapore does. If you are born in Singapore you are a citizen just like here. However, if mom is not a citizen and happens to be in Singapore when it is time for birth she must do one of the following:

Sign papers giving up the right of baby's citizenship or

She is taken to location, usually at the airport, that is outside the officially reconigized country e.g., where air travelers line up at immigration for the birth.

If it is not possible to get to the airport/customs location, then the Government....

Come to think of it, it will not work here as Singapore controls its borders!

 

[c_yeager]

Come to think of it, it will not work here as Singapore controls its borders!

impressive feet for an island nation

 

[Solo]

The historical context was covering blacks who were brought here by force as slaves. I see that as long having since served its purpose and would simply repeal it. If a provision of the Constitution gets in the way, change it, if you can get the votes. Do not create some rationale why the Constitution doesn't mean what it says or can be ignored.

I see the Second Amendment as long having since served its purpose and would simply repeal it. If a provision of the Constitution gets in the way, change it, if you can get the votes. Do not create some rationale why the Constitution doesn't mean what it says or can be ignored.

 

[longeyes]

I see the Second Amendment as long having since served its purpose and would simply repeal it. If a provision of the Constitution gets in the way, change it, if you can get the votes. Do not create some rationale why the Constitution doesn't mean what it says or can be ignored.

It helps the understand the context if you want to interpret the Constitution. The 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to illegal immigration.

 

[RKCheung]

It helps the understand the context if you want to interpret the Constitution. The 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to illegal immigration.

Just like how the 2nd was never intended to apply beyond muskets?

 

[lysander]

Such fear in this thread....

Nice to see the demagoguery about birthright, stolen lands, stolen treasure and the like. Because nobody had a "birthright" to North America before we (Americans of European descent) showed up right? Because there wasn't anybody here before "Manifest Destiny" helped rationalize the seizure of all lands west of the mighty Mississippi right? Because the sovereign nation of Mexico didn't once lay claim to the American Southwest right? Because the treasure has always belonged to "us" somehow....it is ours....because "we", who gaze so lovingly on Ole Glory and worship a piece of paper that our own "government" ignores, are the chosen?

The same walls, minefields and machinegun towers that keep illegals out...will be used to keep Americans in. The same iron fist you want to give to the "gubmint" to protect you from the flood of brown men from the south...will be used to break your nose.

 

[RealGun]

I see the Second Amendment as long having since served its purpose and would simply repeal it. If a provision of the Constitution gets in the way, change it, if you can get the votes. Do not create some rationale why the Constitution doesn't mean what it says or can be ignored.

Biases aside, that is actually the way it works, but there is no such thing as repealing a natural right of self defense or access to arms that reasonably and effectively make that possible. If I need to switch to a sky zapper, so be it. I like to shoot though :>(

Govt. can, however, declare that it has no vested interest in citizen gun ownership, i.e. forsaking any explicit concern about militias. Nothing changes unless people vote for it in sufficient numbers of States. Other countries have done something similar but ignored self defense needs. Funny how they aren't on anyone's human rights violation list.

If the Constitution read that compelling state interest was a regulating factor of a right, the realities of the RKBA would not be so controversial. It sounds absolute but never could be. There is a happy medium between that and being completely ignored or always subject to some legal workaround.

 

[Cosmoline]

Bedrock? No, I don't think so. This "bedrock" was never meant to apply to illegal immigrants. For a long time we didn't pay attention to this principle because we didn't have to, because it wasn't being abused. Now it is, and now it is going to change.

My point is that perception is reality: American citizens are going to come to resent the children of illegal aliens demanding full rights and privileges. They sense the fundamental unfairness of that. You can wave all the documents you want and give them whatever construction you prefer, but I'm simply saying that the way these people will be treated will depend on the broader social and cultural picture. Americans sense their land's being invaded, their sovereignty ruptured, their hospitality profaned, their treasure stolen. Why should the children of illegal immigrants be entitled to privileges that children of American citizens--and that includes, of course, legal immigrants--are denied? It won't wash; only a matter of time before people have really had enough.

The PARENTS are breaking the law. An infant, born in the US, cannot be violating a law unless you believe the sins of the father should be visited on the son. This is not just unconstitutional but about as unamerican as you can get. If they're born here they are not illegal. PERIOD. You can argue with the 14th Amendment about it.