Anchor Babies complicating policy?

[jillian]

Again, what would you use as a basis for citizenship OTHER than birth?

 

[DamnYankee]

Are Charles Gibson's, Katie Couric's, Brian Williams' babies considered anchor babies?

No need for an "anchor" when at least one parent is a citizen.

 

[DamnYankee]

Again, what would you use as a basis for citizenship OTHER than birth?

How about, at the very least, permanent resident status of at least one of the parents? As opposed to "undocumented"....

 

[LaLinda75]

The illegals can NOT have it ALL ways. They want their cake and eat it too. They are takers; never givers. I can just imagine this country under their rule. This country will be like the ones from which they come; 'born out of poverty, lawlessness, chaos, misery - and in many instances - ignorance'.

'We can't open the front door because the back door is off the hinges'

'All countries have been helped by immigrants....NOT just the USA. Can anybody name a country that was not built with the help of immigrants?'

'When they can't beat you in a debate, they try to destroy you in other ways'

'They don't hate us because WE think we are bertter than they are; they hate us because THEY think we are better than they are'

 

[jillian]

I asked a question. Think you can stop babbling long enough to answer it?

What do you suggest as a basis of citizenship if not birth.

 

[Shogun]

A correlated citizenship of the parents. Are soldiers and their wives who give birth in France producing a French citizen or an American citizen?

 

[jillian]

What is a "correlated citizenship of parents"?

Citizenship by blood?

 

[Shogun]

a citizenship depending on the citizenship status of the parents. If Jose and Maria jump the border in order to give birth in the US then all three should still be Mexican citizens. If Oscar finds himself a (more than likely) fat chick to get preggos for a green card then the kid and mom should stay while Oscar is returned to Mexico where the mother and child are free to follow (if true love were involved but lets be honest...)

 

[007]

Again, what would you use as a basis for citizenship OTHER than birth?

Actually, a baby born to someone who is NOT a legal American citizen should NOT be given citizenship. It's a gross misconception of the 14th Amendment....

The Fourteenth Amendment states,"(A) Persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

However a proviso limits foreigners who have babies in America. It couldn't be clearer, children of foreigners, aliens or diplomats, who are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, are ineligible for citizenship. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified we didn't have immigration laws. One hundred and thirty eight years later we are paying for the misinterpretation of it.

http://www.rense.com/general54/anchorbabiesborn.htm

All children born to illegal aliens should not be citizens. If citizenship was granted, it should be revoked, retroactively.

Same reason why obama shouldn't be President. He isn't a natural born American citizen either, or else he'd have proven it by now with his "ORIGINAL" birth certificate. Not some phony bologna photoshop fake.

 

[LilOlLady]

As an aside, why is it that the people who can least afford to have kids have the most?

Be cause we take care of them. Anchors babies are eligable for all social services and they collect as the expence or the American tax payer.
Our best shot is deportation by attrition. I guess that would be enforcement by the E-Verify system.
ICE was doing a great jobs and they have stopped.

 

[DamnYankee]

Hi AllBiz:

What so complicated about an Amendment to the Constitution that disallows automatic "birthright" citizenship?

Illegal Immigrants' Legal Kids Snarl Policy
Increased Birthrate Exacerbates Issue

By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 15, 2009; Page A01

A new report providing the most detailed portrait to date of the illegal immigrant population found that it is mostly made up of young families that are having children at a much faster rate than previously known. The study, released yesterday by the nonpartisan, Washington-based Pew Hispanic Center, also found that a disproportionate share of such children live in poverty and lack health insurance.

Because any child born in the United States has a right to citizenship, the growing presence of these children is likely to complicate the debate over immigration policies aimed at their parents.

NO!!!! This is the kind of ignorance that sees the USA going down the toilet more and more with every passing day. The 14th Amendment (link) includes the 'subject to' clause pertaining to individuals (slaves) owned by U.S. Citizens allowing 'them' and their descendants to become U.S. citizens. Foreign Nationals are 'subject to' the laws of 'their homeland' AND they are sneaking across our borders 'illegally' in order to 'benefit' from a misinterpretation of our 14th Amendment for their own personal gain/benefit.

There is no loophole in the 14th Amendment allowing Foreign Nationals to suddenly become 'subject to' the laws of the USA by coming here 'illegally' to engage in 'illegal' activity, but people working every day to 'destroy' this once-great nation created that false notion to forward 'their' Open Borders Lobby Agenda. The 14th Amendment is being purposely 'Misinterpreted' (story) to create the immigration debacle by adding strength to the Illegal Immigration Magnet (story) to force stupid Americans into believing that Comprehensive Amnesty is a viable solution; when in reality the USA is cutting its own throat by legitimizing the Illegal Alien Invasion that is destroying this once-great nation.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDaEBB0MJXI[/ame]

GL,

Terral

Apologies, for neglecting to respond earlier. Since our Constitutional "geniuses" seem adept at interpreting "subject to" undue influence, it would seem that a specific amendment is needed which spells it out in plain English.

Of course, the problem with that (or the complication I asked about), is the difficulty in enacting an Amendment to the Constitution. As sacred as the original document is, one would think that it was written in granite, given the frequency (or lack thereof) of amendments that have been adopted.

Another, obvious, problem is, if interpretation of the (already) written word is so difficult and subjective, it's rather difficult for a body as large as Congress to agree on new codification. And then there's enforcement, which, naturally, goes to interpretation.

Perhaps a better question would have been: How difficult is it for the American people to convince their representatives to do what they want them to do? Hmmm....

 

[LaLinda75]

I'm just sitting back 'enjoying' the show. The demise of this great nation! Actually - NO! I will sit back and CRY for what was and could have been!
BTW, is anybody out there going to participate in the 'marches'??? Fly the USA flag upside down? Burn it? Stomp on it? Fly every flag except Ole Glory? Scream about how much of a victim you are? Yell because we should honor and reward that you came into this country illegally? Well, tune into any spanish channel today and you will see all of the above. Unless of course, they learned from the marches of 2006 and refrain from their inbred stupidity. I doubt that this message will make it to the boards as it's not PC.

 

[jillian]

Again, what would you use as a basis for citizenship OTHER than birth?

How about, at the very least, permanent resident status of at least one of the parents? As opposed to "undocumented"....

and what if they're here on a work Visa? They're here legally.

I have a problem with doing away with the concept of birth as a basis for citizenship.

We've seen how the whole bloodline thing works.

It isn't pretty.

 

[DamnYankee]

Again, what would you use as a basis for citizenship OTHER than birth?

How about, at the very least, permanent resident status of at least one of the parents? As opposed to "undocumented"....

and what if they're here on a work Visa? They're here legally.

I have a problem with doing away with the concept of birth as a basis for citizenship.

We've seen how the whole bloodline thing works.

It isn't pretty.

"Here legally" doesn't grant them citizenship rights. If it did, they would be granted the right to vote. Work Visas are, by their very definition "temporary". The fact that they, and the government, "overlooks" when the term of the visa expires is, and has been, one of the very reasons that we have become a nation of illegal immigrants. The children born to those here under those conditions/circumstances are / should be citizens of their (parents') country of origin -- not the country they happen to be standing on.

You're right.... It isn't pretty.... It's a damned shame that we let this happen!

 

[jillian]

"Here legally" doesn't grant them citizenship rights. If it did, they would be granted the right to vote.

ummmmmmmm.... right. but that wasn't my question.

Work Visas are, by their very definition "temporary". The fact that they, and the government, "overlooks" when the term of the visa expires is, and has been, one of the very reasons that we have become a nation of illegal immigrants.

Agreed. Same for student visas. but again, that isn't my question because if their status has expired, they are no longer here legally.

The children born to those here under those conditions/circumstances are / should be citizens of their (parents') country of origin -- not the country they happen to be standing on.

There is an argument to be made there, but then what is your criteria? legal status? permanent residency? citizenship? there are people who never get there citizenship, but have permanent residence status. Their children should be citizens if born here, IMO.

You're right.... It isn't pretty.... It's a damned shame that we let this happen!

Yes. And therein lies the crux of the problem. It WAS allowed to happen....and for a lot of reasons, including corporations liking cheap labor. but fact is they are here. And we can chose to expend all our money on enforcement..... or we can choose to make rational decisions for the future about what to do with the people already here and how to prevent illegals from being here in the future.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

Personally, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment that changes the 14th to read that only children born to at least one American citizen are American citizens. Extending citizenship to every person born within the United States already served its purpose, because all of the former slaves and children of former slaves are now already recognized as citizens.

 

[DamnYankee]

"Here legally" doesn't grant them citizenship rights. If it did, they would be granted the right to vote.

ummmmmmmm.... right. but that wasn't my question.

Work Visas are, by their very definition "temporary". The fact that they, and the government, "overlooks" when the term of the visa expires is, and has been, one of the very reasons that we have become a nation of illegal immigrants.

Agreed. Same for student visas. but again, that isn't my question because if their status has expired, they are no longer here legally.

The children born to those here under those conditions/circumstances are / should be citizens of their (parents') country of origin -- not the country they happen to be standing on.

There is an argument to be made there, but then what is your criteria? legal status? permanent residency? citizenship? there are people who never get there citizenship, but have permanent residence status. Their children should be citizens if born here, IMO.

You're right.... It isn't pretty.... It's a damned shame that we let this happen!

Yes. And therein lies the crux of the problem. It WAS allowed to happen....and for a lot of reasons, including corporations liking cheap labor. but fact is they are here. And we can chose to expend all our money on enforcement..... or we can choose to make rational decisions for the future about what to do with the people already here and how to prevent illegals from being here in the future.

Yet what you asked originally was answered.


Quote: Originally Posted by jillian
Again, what would you use as a basis for citizenship OTHER than birth?

Quote: Originally Posted by ALLBizFR0M925
How about, at the very least, permanent resident status of at least one of the parents? As opposed to "undocumented"....


Then, that wasn't good enough, so you added "what if". When the "what if" was answered, in detail, you claim that wasn't your question.

Then, even more amusing, is the section in bold blue, almost as if it's an original thought.

Now, since we seem to agree on the problem, and some of the solutions, do you have any suggestions I haven't already thought of/tried with regard to implementing them? <g>

 

[GHook93]

What so complicated about an Amendment to the Constitution that disallows automatic "birthright" citizenship?

A few things make it tough!

(1) To add an amendment to the constitution, you need either a 2/3 vote by both house of Congress and a Presidential Approve or a 2nd consitutional convention (here you would need the approval of 2/3 of the State legislations - seeing that there has only been one constitutional convention a 2nd one is very unlikely)
(2) The Birthright clause is in the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is considered a very important amendment. It also includes the privilege and immunities clause, reenforces the due process clause and contain the equal protection clause. Changing any parts here will have "privilege" goods up in arms.
(3) Democrats own the house and prefer the open border policy to insure they keep the Democratic votes pouring in.
(4) The large and ever growing Latino population, will fight teeth and nail to prevent any legislation stopping the unjust birthright policy from reversing!

 

[GHook93]

What so complicated about an Amendment to the Constitution that disallows automatic "birthright" citizenship?

I'm all for it, but for political expedience, I doubt that either party will follow up on this suggestion as it might cause them to lose out on hispanic voters. I see anchor babies as a huge slap in the face of the citizenship provisions of our constitution, but I doubt that either party has the cojones to fix this issue.

If Democrats and Republicans supported a Constitutional amendment in unison, then who would lose Hispanic votes? In truth, if the people want this change, they need to start a grass roots non-partisan effort pushing their representatives to put this in motion.

It would be the person in the party who didn't actively go against the Latinos! Some sellout would say look at my racist opponent in the primary. La Raza would be nailing the person as a racist. The ACLU would be all over him. It would be a smearbath! No Democrat has the guts to say their anti-illegal immigration.

It would be the same for a Republican who was pro-choice!

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm all for it, but for political expedience, I doubt that either party will follow up on this suggestion as it might cause them to lose out on hispanic voters. I see anchor babies as a huge slap in the face of the citizenship provisions of our constitution, but I doubt that either party has the cojones to fix this issue.

If Democrats and Republicans supported a Constitutional amendment in unison, then who would lose Hispanic votes? In truth, if the people want this change, they need to start a grass roots non-partisan effort pushing their representatives to put this in motion.

It would be the person in the party who didn't actively go against the Latinos! Some sellout would say look at my racist opponent in the primary. La Raza would be nailing the person as a racist. The ACLU would be all over him. It would be a smearbath! No Democrat has the guts to say their anti-illegal immigration.

It would be the same for a Republican who was pro-choice!

See? It really isn't complicated at all.... It's political bullshit, plain and simple.