Born in the U.S. = American citizen, but not if Trump has his way

[Unkotare]

....A simple ruling on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" will make or break it.

The Supreme Court already did that.

.

 

[JoeMoma]

WTF! The political class doesn't follow the Constitution...unless it fits their devious heinous needs.

Oh, yes, but gun control needs an amendment doesn't it?

If the constitution were followed to the letter, it would need an amendment. "Shall not be infringed" is quite absolute.

 

[ptbw forever]

..... Give the anchor babies the boot right along with their parents. If they want to come back, get in line like the rest of the world does.

You can't "give the boot" to US citizens, and we are NOT going to.

Anchor babies are counterfeit citizens .....

No such thing. Any baby born in the US is every bit as much a citizen as you or me. That's reality, and we are NOT going to deport US citizens. The sooner people set aside the silly emoting, the sooner serious discussion of the serious issue of illegal immigration can be addressed.

Obviously you don't actually think illegal immigration is a "serious issue" if you think the 6 "American" children of those same illegal immigrants should be automatically considered citizens, especially since those kids will then appeal to have their parents stay here anyway.

 

[Pilate]

The fourteenth amendment, much like laws regarding sexual assault and rape, is poorly worded and the government should seek to remedy it.

 

[JoeMoma]

IMHO, which makes no more difference than anyone else's:

I don't think that any child born in the US to parents who came here illegally should 'AUTOMATICALLY' be named / made US citizens. Babies become 'tools' - leverage - to use for the argument for the parents to be able to stay.

It's like a criminal breaking into your house, delivering a baby, then declaring the baby is now part of your family and the house is just as much the baby's (and thus theirs) as it is yours. Ummm, NO!

What do you call the baby of illegal immigrants who 'broke into our house'? The baby of illegal immigrants who broke into 'our house.

If you go to Japan and are even there legally, last time I was there and my daughter was born we weren't given the option of her having Japanese citizenship.

If 'you' want to be COMPLETELY honest about the whole illegal immigration issue one must recognize that to Liberals illegal immigrants are nothing more than 'tools' - VOTES - because they know once here they have nothing and will become completely dependent on all the AMERCIAN TAX PAYER-FUNDED 'freebies' the Libs will dish out, growing the size of the 'economic slavery' 'plantation'.

Never mind that the social programs that already exist are over-burdening this country's economy and future, straining it more and more towards collapse. Politicians are determined to milk it as long as they can.

The existing social programs are also NOT designed to get anyone OFF these programs. Dependency on these programs and on those who will keep handing out the 'freebies' is critical to continuing to secure the votes.

So, as the circle completes itself in this discussion, who else are those who support illegal immigration going to vote for - the guy who opposes illegal immigration or the person who wants to not only want to bring in illegals but 'refugees' as well?!

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN'T VOTE. Why do people keep using this argument? It's stupid.

Illegal immigrants can't legally vote. Their children born in America will be able to vote. A pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants is also a pathway to voting. Also, mail in voting registration (The federal form) uses the honor system for determining citizenship....just check the box, no proof required.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Illegal aliens are subject to the country they came from, not the United States....

So, if an illegal alien steals a car in the US, it's not a crime? He won't be arrested and prosecuted?

You're equivocating the word "subject"

Under US law, is an illegal alien entitled to equal protection like US citizens are?

Under US law, yes. Required by the Constitution, no. Your point?

Required by the Constitution, yes.

So, they are subject to the laws of the United States of America, including the 14th Amendment.

.

 

[jc456]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 14th Amendment
  "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."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

Does Trump only want people born to a US citizen to be US citizens? What about legal immigrants who have been here for years but have not become US citizens--their kids are all born here and live here their whole lives--they are not US citizens? Quite a few immigrants do not go through the process of naturalization--it is costly, complicated and you have to revoke your citizenship in your native country. But they live here legally and raise their families here.
Also, you have to live here five years to apply for naturalization (unless you marry a US citizen, in which case this problem wouldn't apply anyway). What if you have a baby during that time? That child will have to go through the process of obtaining citizenship when (s)he becomes 18?
Trump may not like "anchor babies" but he's going to do a lot of damage to innocent bystanders who are here legally with this rule.
Couldn't he just propose that if the parents are here illegally, their minor children must accompany them back to their home country when deported, or have legal guardianship transferred to a US citizen in order to stay? I worked a case once where the mother was in prison for illegally entering the country, and the kids had to be in DHHS custody until she got out. That is NOT an expense we want to pay.

don't you think you answered your own question? legal vs illegal. hmmmmmmmmm? Do you know what illegal means?

 

[kaz]

So, if an illegal alien steals a car in the US, it's not a crime? He won't be arrested and prosecuted?

You're equivocating the word "subject"

Under US law, is an illegal alien entitled to equal protection like US citizens are?

Under US law, yes. Required by the Constitution, no. Your point?

Required by the Constitution, yes.

So, they are subject to the laws of the United States of America, including the 14th Amendment.

You're equivocating "subject" to laws

 

[jc456]

Trump wants his US citizens to be white and purebred as he is....

link

 

[Unkotare]

What is subject to? definition and meaning

 

[Unkotare]

..... Give the anchor babies the boot right along with their parents. If they want to come back, get in line like the rest of the world does.

You can't "give the boot" to US citizens, and we are NOT going to.

Anchor babies are counterfeit citizens .....

No such thing. Any baby born in the US is every bit as much a citizen as you or me. That's reality, and we are NOT going to deport US citizens. The sooner people set aside the silly emoting, the sooner serious discussion of the serious issue of illegal immigration can be addressed.

Obviously you don't actually think illegal immigration is a "serious issue" ...,,,

I have very clearly stated that I do many, many times. Don't try to misrepresent my own views.

 

[jc456]

..... Give the anchor babies the boot right along with their parents. If they want to come back, get in line like the rest of the world does.

You can't "give the boot" to US citizens, and we are NOT going to.

you gonna watch em when their parents get the boot?

 

[jc456]

..... Give the anchor babies the boot right along with their parents. If they want to come back, get in line like the rest of the world does.

You can't "give the boot" to US citizens, and we are NOT going to.

Anchor babies are counterfeit citizens .....

No such thing. Any baby born in the US is every bit as much a citizen as you or me. That's reality, and we are NOT going to deport US citizens. The sooner people set aside the silly emoting, the sooner serious discussion of the serious issue of illegal immigration can be addressed.

why not, are you gonna take care of the babies, times they are a changing. Remember obummer care? nothing legal there.

 

[jc456]

.........they gotta go.......

The Constitution of the United States of America disagrees with you.

they'll go, what is it you're gonna do?

 

[westwall]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 14th Amendment
  "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."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

I can't think of a single country that has that policy. Can you link to one that does?

 

[jc456]

"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."

Never was intended to reward anyone that was born here due to a criminal act. The argument is the kids didn't have anything to do with it. Same argument could be made about the kids of a bank robber. Should they get to keep the money using that same argument?

The 14th Amendment says what the 14th Amendment says. Emoting won't change that.

it will Jan 2017.

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 14th Amendment
  "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."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

I can't think of a single country that has that policy. Can you link to one that does?

Birthright citizenship? Canada.

 

[westwall]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 14th Amendment
  "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."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

I can't think of a single country that has that policy. Can you link to one that does?

Birthright citizenship? Canada.

Are they the only ones? And I see that they didn't have it till 1977.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

only an idiot would not know that the 14th was written to protect the slaves and their children.
It was never meant to allow millions of anchor spawn to be plopped out just across our border and immediately begin collecting entitlements.
and it also does not cover the parents of the genetic blob that is plopped out just across our border.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't really have a problem with altering U.S. citizenship standards so it works that way, but that's not the way the way U.S. law/policy is applied currently. I do have a problem with revising our policies doing so as you've suggested will force people to be stateless. That's why I linked the content about statelessness.

It's Mexico and others that need to change. The illegal aliens come here to give birth so they can collect welfare for their children and so they can grow up here. Then it would be mean to separate families since Mexico not only doesn't want it's own citizens back, but they don't want the children born here.

This whole thing is out of control. Mexico uses their poor by encouraging them to come here and then send back billions in remittances to help them out. And Mexico does nothing for it's poor citizens.

So, it's not our fault that millions decided to enter illegally and have children here, knowing that they would rightfully be deported if we follow our current laws.

You bring up current laws regarding birthright, but current immigration laws do not allow people to sneak in the country and live here without going through the legal process. It's the people putting themselves in this position and most other countries would never allow it.

The left wants to change it so anyone can come and not worry about deportation. I think we should uphold immigration laws and clarify the law regarding birthright citizenship. If the parents have no business being here, their children should not be given citizenship. We need to change things because this will soon be so out of hand that borders will be non-existent.

Red:
Facts and sources, please. Where is the documentation from the Mexican government that supports your conclusions/claims? Please show it to me for I've not seen it. What I have seen is this:

​

And I've seen the examination into the factual merit of the claims in that 2010 video. I've also read this New York Times article. The rest of what I've seen is various writers, as you have above, opining about what Mexico is and isn't doing and what Mexico's intent is, yet providing no clear evidence that anyone can review on their own to determine whether they agree with those opinions.

As goes Mexican illegal immigrants, there were 5.6 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2014, down from 6.4 million in 2009, according to preliminary Pew Research Center estimates.


Here is the "Guide for the Mexican Migrant" (a 2005 publication) that, as far as I can tell, forms the basis for the opinions and claims conservatives make similar to your "red" ones.

• There is no information on where to cross the border or how to avoid the Border Patrol or U.S. authorities when doing so.
• Two illustrations appear to show migrants in flight from law officers; however, the text does not contain information on how to avoid law enforcement while crossing over. Moreover, it advises people to cooperate if they encounter the border patrol.
  
• The document begins as follows:
  • The purpose of this guide is to provide you with practical advice that may prove useful to you in case you have made the difficult decision to search for employment opportunities outside of your country. The sure way to enter another country is by getting your passport from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the visa, which you may apply for at the embassy or consulate of the country you wish to travel to.
    
    Reading this guide will make you aware of some basic questions about the legal consequences of your stay in the United States of America without the appropriate migratory documents, as well as about the rights you have in that country, once you are there, independent of your migratory status.However, in practice we see many Mexicans who try to cross the Northern Border without the necessary documents, through high risk zones that involve grave dangers, particularly in desert areas or rivers with strong, and not always obvious, currents.
    
    Keep in mind always that there exist legal mechanisms to enter the United States of America legally.
• It continues later saying:
  • DO NOT USE FALSE DOCUMENTS DO NOT USE FALSE DOCUMENTS OR THOSE THAT DO NOT BELONG TO YOU, NOR DECLARE A FALSE NATIONALITY.
    
    If you try crossing with false documents or another person's documents, be aware that using false documents or another person's is a federal crime in the United States, for which you can be criminally tried and jailed; likewise if you use a false name or claim to be a citizen of the United States when you are not one. Do not lie to American government officials whom you encounter.
• The rest of the document discusses
  • the health dangers associated with traveling in a desert
    • DANGERS IN CROSSING HIGH RISK ZONES
      Crossing the river can be very risky, most especially if you cross alone and at night.
      If you are going to walk through the desert, avoid doing so at the hottest times of day. Highways and population centers are far apart, so you will spend several days looking for roads, and you will not be able to carry enough food or water for long periods of time. Also, you can get lost.
  • the danger of becoming involved with "coyotes, polleros" (human traffickers) and advises against interacting with them
    • "They will try to entice you with assurances of crossing in a few hours through the mountains and deserts. Don't believe them! They will put your life at risk by taking you across rivers, drainage canals, desert areas, train tracks, or highways. Many people have died this way."
  • what rights one has in the event one is arrested or detained by American law enforcement/immigration officials.
• There's no encouragement to send money back to the Mexican government or to people in Mexico.
• There's nothing encouraging people to leave Mexico in the first place.

My Conclusions with regard to the evidence I could find that might potentially support your claims above:

• If that "GuÍa" document is your idea of a document informing people on how to succeed at illegally immigrating to the U.S., it's a very lame effort. I damn sure wouldn't rely on that document as a primary source of advice for how to do so. I mean really. Were "encouragement and informing" the intent, among the things that would be paramount to inform folks about were that the intent is how to evade Border Patrol.
• The Mexican government hardly wants people literally dying as they try to get into the U.S., and Mexico surely knows that some of its citizens will try to enter the U.S. via a desert crossing regardless of whether it advises against doing so. It makes sense that at the very least, and for those people' own good, that the Mexican government publish a document that identifies the hazards of trying to cross the desert in an effort to dissuade them from doing so, which is the tone the document takes. The U.S. government would do the same if it knew it had citizens hiking through the desert regardless of why they are doing so.
  
  The U.S. government knows that folks will undertake similarly dangerous treks. It produces some basic information about the safety risks of doing so. That's what democracies (their governments) do; they try to look out for the safety of their citizens no matter what risky pursuit they may try to undertake. That's not an encouragement to engage in a given activity. It's saying "if you're gonna do it, at least be safe about it."

Blue:
??? Can you be considerably more coherent in clarifying, please, whatever idea that paragraph is trying to convey? By definition, no country allows illegal immigration, not even the U.S.

If you want to make a point about folks who come illegally to the U.S., fine. If you want to discuss folks who are born in the U.S. to people who are here illegally, fine. If you want to address folks who travel here legally and give birth while here legally, fine. I'm okay with discussing any of those classes of immigrants/visitors, but I'm not okay with conflating them. I won't do it and I won't engage in a conversation with someone who does that.

If you are trying to assert that no other country allows birthright citizenship, you and I can just stop having a conversation because you're flat out wrong about that and you made no effort to find out whether you were right or wrong before writing the final sentence of the "blue" paragraph. I'm sorry, but I'm at the point now where I have zero tolerance or will for discourse with folks who blatantly verify their own beliefs/ideas and arguments for accuracy, validity and soundness. Loud, strong and wrong just doesn't cut it.


Green:
Here again, documentation please, that is, unless you aver to being a spokesperson for "the left." Either you have clear statements to that effect or you have a strong (valid and sound) argument to that effect. I'm okay with either, but I want to see one or the other.

You are citing some laws. Our government is ignoring the laws, as is Mexico.

It's what is being practiced that caused the problem.

All we hear from Obama is amnesty, Dream Act, etc. Colleges are offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens from other states.

And reports have been coming in for years now from INS regarding the state of the border. Our border guards have their hands tied. While Obama claims security at the border is fine, people who live there and ICE officials tell a different story. They have illegals crossing the border and coming up to them to ask how to get amnesty.

While Obama claims he has deported more people than ever, we get constant reports of illegal alien criminals released in our streets and deportations have been cancelled on a regular basis. We have sanctuary cities flouting immigration laws and protecting illegal aliens from deportation.

I'm not going to spend my afternoon looking for a hundred links for reports that have come in over the years. You can do that instead yourself or look elsewhere in these threads since much has been posted.

Laws are being ignored.

The college thing is especially annoying considering that many of our OWN citizens don't get to go to college.

Why does the college thing matter at all?

• "A" immigrates to the U.S. saves the money to afford in-state tuition at a college in their state. "A" may or may not be lawfully in the U.S.
• "B" is a citizen who does not save enough to afford in-state tuition at a college in their state.