GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship

[longeyes]

Culture, religion, and race have no place in defining the country, especially the government, other than in mentioning diversity.

Our seminal American documents are cultural artifacts, born of a specific time and place and, most importantly, a specific way of viewing the individual, the state, the world. This is a cultural thread that we dare not ignore--if we wish to preserve the values inherent in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights.

 

[justashooter]

birthright status for children of individuals engaged in illegal acts, and subsequent citizenship rights for the illegals as first degree relatives of a citizen under the K1 visa, and citizenship application process?

fruit of a poison tree, like going thru a gas station on a corner to avoid a red light, which is illegal circumvention of a law.

statute can be written to clarify this issue, and should be. children born to illegals should be regarded as illegals, and children born to people on visas should have the same status as the parent. end of subject.

 

[RealGun]

Since the US is a democratic republic, the government reflects, or should reflect, the will of the people. - gc70

That is a grand philosophy unless you are not part of the dominant group. By the time you rise to the federal level there should be no bias and no allowance for direct control by an exclusive group.

 

[longeyes]

birthright status for children of individuals engaged in illegal acts, and subsequent citizenship rights for the illegals as first degree relatives of a citizen under the K1 visa, and citizenship application process?

fruit of a poison tree, like going thru a gas station on a corner to avoid a red light, which is illegal circumvention of a law.

I've used the same "fruit of the poison tree" analog myself in these threads. Jus soli, as applied to the children of illegal immigrants, defies common sense, morality, and good statecraft.

 

[lysander]

A country is made up of people.

Not really. Much of the disagreement in this thread stems from a lack of common definitions.

A country is defined by geographic territory.

A nation generally refers to an ethnic group, common culture or identity group.

A state is a system of organized government that exists within a defined territory (country).

A nation-state is a form of state which exists to protect the sovereign interests of a specific nation. The driving principle of the nation-state is the protection of national identity.

The grand fear is that the wave of brown men from the south will lead to such an erosion of our national identity....that the nation-state will no longer exist in the way we know it. The nation-state's mission will get redirected...to protect alien interests....new interests...the interests of the emerging nation formed from the remnants of the old one.

So the real trick will be in preserving the pieces of our national identity that we find indispensable, while absorbing the beneficial and enriching new pieces brought in by immigrants (illegal or not). We all agree that hot dogs and apple pie are Americana....but they didn't start that way did they? They started as german sausages and dutch/english deserts. How much Italian cuisine does this nation-state devour? Pizza as we know is a decidely American spin on an Italian food....this list goes on and on.

I think the borders are fine as is....the real issue is that we aren't diligent enough in requiring those who cross them to jump in the melting pot and melt. Instead we see the rise of the enclave. Distance from your homeland becomes less and less significant when you can phone, email, videomail, and fly home.

 

[longeyes]

So the real trick will be in preserving the pieces of our national identity that we find indispensable, while absorbing the beneficial and enriching new pieces brought in by immigrants (illegal or not). We all agree that hot dogs and apple pie are Americana....but they didn't start that way did they? They started as german sausages and dutch/english deserts. How much Italian cuisine does this nation-state devour? Pizza as we know is a decidely American spin on an Italian food....this list goes on and on.

It's not about cuisine. It's about who's eating whom.

 

[lysander]

It's not about cuisine. It's about who's eating whom.

I agree...I just think that our efforts need to be pushed in a different direction. Why try to fight the tide? Shouldn't we be working towards teaching new arrivals the bedrock American principles of liberty, individual rights and opportunity?

Perhaps we are embroiled in our own Great Migration Period....stretching from the first huge waves of European immigrants (1850-1930 or so) to now and the waves of Hispanic and Asian immigrants.

Fear about who should and shouldn't be a "citizen" is as old as we are. So again...I say rather than fretting over where the immigrants are coming from or, what they look like, we should focus on educating (by educating...I mean passing on the cultural principles that make America unique) the ones who are here.

 

[longeyes]

Basically, I agree, although I still think we need immigration curbs for a variety of reasons. It's not just the immigrants who need educating about what America stands for. The problem is the tide of multiculturalism and diversityism inhibits the general desire for assimilation.

 

[gc70]

Since the US is a democratic republic, the government reflects, or should reflect, the will of the people. - gc70

That is a grand philosophy unless you are not part of the dominant group. - RealGun

I was not expressing a philosophy; I was only describing the way government works in the US.

By the time you rise to the federal level there should be no bias and no allowance for direct control by an exclusive group.

The current form of government in the US will always contain biases that reflect what the majority of the people want.

A country is made up of people. - gc70

A country is defined by geographic territory. - lysander

Correct; I should have said "A nation is made up of people."

 

[Cosmoline]

birthright status for children of individuals engaged in illegal acts, and subsequent citizenship rights for the illegals as first degree relatives of a citizen under the K1 visa, and citizenship application process?

fruit of a poison tree, like going thru a gas station on a corner to avoid a red light, which is illegal circumvention of a law.

statute can be written to clarify this issue, and should be. children born to illegals should be regarded as illegals, and children born to people on visas should have the same status as the parent. end of subject.

So the son bears the sins of the father? Going through a gas station parking lot is something YOU DO with deliberate intent to circumvent the law. Does the kid conspire to illegally cross the border while in the womb? There's no mens rea or actus reus--the key elements for any crime. The child cannot be charged with illegal immigration and under the 14th is as much an American as you or I.

 

[lysander]

Curbing immigration would probably best be accomplished by simply turning out the porch light so it stops drawing moths. The tax dollar giveaway is a pretty substantial porch light.

I also agree with your assessment of the multi-culta-diversa-ism problem.

What I don't want to see is a fear of illegals used as a mechanism to give the gubmint more intrusive powers. Protecting "citizenship" lends itself to things like national ID cards, intrusive searches of free citizens and their property (you know...to prove you aren't harboring illegals), etc.

 

[gc70]

+1 on turning out the porch light. Freebies are a major attraction. Another attraction for illegal immigrants is the nearly absolute assurance of finding employment through acceptance of substandard (read: illegally low) wages.

 

[RealGun]

Curbing immigration would probably best be accomplished by simply turning out the porch light so it stops drawing moths. The tax dollar giveaway is a pretty substantial porch light. - lysander

I have assumed that at least part of the intent of the initiative to cease imparting citizenship to children born here of illegal immigrants is to take away the incentive to come here as a way of wishing a better future for ones children. That should be harder, available only to parents who came here legally. Of course, the worst part is that once a child is born here, the child is typically considered better off staying with parents, so then the parents get special consideration or are actually treated as immune from deportation, formally or informally. The word gets out and more follow.

Perhaps the greatest underlying concern is that descendants of the founding fathers or those of similar ethnic and cultural background are now in the minority and have lower birth rates. The term "minority" may become outdated or turned on its head. The country probably needs a good time out while there is some promotion of assimilation and for foreigns to understand that coming here must be by legal means through controlled checkpoints.

 

[Waitone]

Assimilation will not take place in the US until there is a political sea change. There exists an entire political and social infrastructure dedicated to fragmenting our society. Multiculturalism is merely the best known manifestation. Political advocacy groups promote the agenda to legislatures, bureaucrats, and politicians. Blissninny think tanks crank out studies singing the praises of the groupthink. Law groups wield the litigation club against any one or group that dares challenge groupthink. Legislators write legislation and pass laws funneling money into thinktanks and law groups. Politicians of all stripes love a fractured electorate. Much easier to divide and conquer than it is to build a concensus across a broad range.

Rest assured somehow or someway there is more money in "diversity" than in "assimilation." This is the 21st century of the plantation. Not as obvious and crude but quite effective nonetheless.

What is happening in France and will be happening in Chermany is fair warning that the road we now travel will have consequences which will be expensive and brutal. Cultural warfare is never resolved with kumbiya logic. The question we have to ask is simple, "Is our historic culture worthy of saving, or is it something best forgotten." If it is worth saving do we have the moral fortitude to fight the war to conclusion.

 

[coylh]

Is our historic culture worthy of saving, or is it something best forgotten.

Do you mean you're going to start making arrow heads and pemmican? Or are you talking about the culture of European immigrants?

 

[DRZinn]

For the record, I'm in favor of deporting the parents and giving them the option to take or leave the child.

But, deporting the child would not a punishment. Assuming the Constitution could be amended to stop granting "birthright citizenship," deportation of children born here to illegal parents would simply be correcting the improper situation, ie non-citizens in this country without permission. Why must you look at it as a punishment?

 

[Glock Glockler]

Do you mean you're going to start making arrow heads and pemmican? Or are you talking about the culture of European immigrants?

America is a product of western civilization, the culture of the natives was not and it produced a standard of living that would be considered 3rd world by our standards. Do you think western civilization is worth preserving?

 

[Augustwest]

Cosmoline's statements on this thread are reasoned and true.

I would guess that many of the people who are arguing for this subversion of the Constitution complain alot about activist judges twisting words to suit their means...

 

[longeyes]

I would guess that many of the people who are arguing for this subversion of the Constitution complain alot about activist judges twisting words to suit their means...

Not subvert, re-interpret or, if necessary, AMEND.

One should look at the original intent, yes? The 14A was never intended to apply to illegal immigrants or their offspring.

 

[RealGun]

The 14A was never intended to apply to illegal immigrants or their offspring. - longeyes

Bingo!

 

[Augustwest]

I don't know how this can be made any clearer: Absent a substantial question as to the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence or paragraph in the Constitution and its amendments, it must be interpreted to mean exactly what it says. Intent is not an issue unless there's some need for interpretation of what's written. There is none in this case.

Amendment XIV 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.

There's absolutely no wiggle room there. It says "ALL persons."

If you all want to push to get the Constitution amended so that Amendment XIV excludes the offspring of illegal immigrants, go for it. I wouldn't vote to ratify it, but if it becomes the law of the land, enshrined in the Constitution, then I'll respect it.

Legislation passed in direct opposition to such concise Constitutional language is repugnant.

I know what "all persons" means, as surely as I know what the meaning of is is, and I won't allow my personal biases or beliefs to skew that in my head.

We don't get to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution we like. It's all or nothing.

I fear more for my country with each passing day. And the threats to it are increasingly from within...

 

[Cosmoline]

One should look at the original intent, yes? The 14A was never intended to apply to illegal immigrants or their offspring.

So you keep saying, but do you have any actual proof?

 

[obiwan1]

Citizenship by location is NOT in the 14th amendment. It was done progressively by judicial decisions made by liberal judges. We are one of the VERY few countries that grants citizenship to illegals just because they were born here. The passing of statutes removing this will greatly help our controlling our borders!:banghead:

 

[Glock Glockler]

In the interest of saving bandwith why don't we agree that Amending the Constitution is the way to go and then discuss the issue with that in mind.

 

[Cosmoline]

Citizenship by location is NOT in the 14th amendment. It was done progressively by judicial decisions made by liberal judges. We are one of the VERY few countries that grants citizenship to illegals just because they were born here. The passing of statutes removing this will greatly help our controlling our borders!:banghead:

How can a newborn infant, delivered in a US hospital, be considered an illegal immigrant? How can they be charged with any crime?