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

[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.

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

I cannot say what their citizenship policy was prior to 1977. What information have you showing that Canada's policy differed prior to 1977?

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Of course it matters. All tax money should be going to US citizens. What do you mean why should it matter at all?

 

[ChrisL]

Illegal immigrants should NOT be getting ANY tax dollars. That money is for OUR people. Not any dope who shows up at our doorstep.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm not going to spend my afternoon looking for a hundred links for reports

The only thing I've asked for is the credible references that support the claims you make. Presumably, you've bothered to check such sources to confirm that your understanding is accurate and complete. Right?

 

[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.

I cannot say what their citizenship policy was prior to 1977. What information have you showing that Canada's policy differed prior to 1977?

I can find no other country that has birthright citizenship other than the USA and Canada thanks to your link. Here is the specific part of the law that pertains to 1977 so that is a fairly recent change.

The Right to Citizenship
Marginal noteersons who are citizens

• 3 (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if
  
  • (a) the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977;
    

 

[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" ...,,,

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

Your views are nonsensical.

If you allow the children born to illegals to stay, the parents ALWAYS stay.

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

I cannot say what their citizenship policy was prior to 1977. What information have you showing that Canada's policy differed prior to 1977?

I can find no other country that has birthright citizenship other than the USA and Canada thanks to your link. Here is the specific part of the law that pertains to 1977 so that is a fairly recent change.

The Right to Citizenship
Marginal noteersons who are citizens

• 3 (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if
  • (a) the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977;

It is amazing Canada even functions with its powerless laws.

The Canadian government literally ignored its own version of the Constitution so it could have government healthcare.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Of course it matters. All tax money should be going to US citizens. What do you mean why should it matter at all?

Red:

• Undocumented Immigrants' State & Local Tax Contributions
• The Impact of Immigration on Social Security and the National Economy
  
  • Among illegal immigrants, SSA actuaries currently assume that about half actually pay social security taxes although they are very unlikely to collect benefits.
    
  • Within our legal immigration system, we have very large backlogs and long waiting times. In 2004, there were 1.1 million applicants awaiting admission to the U.S. who were children or siblings of U.S. citizens. There are only 65,000 visas available each year in that category. In addition, there were between 3 million and 5 million pending applications waiting for initial processing in other immigration categories, plus a backlog of over 4,000 pending immigration appeals. People coming in today from most parts of the world applied 15 to 20 years ago.
    
    The median age of the principal applicant on admission is 55. This means we keep immigrants out of the U.S. during their most productive, wage earning period of time and admit them when they get close to retirement. This does not make sense, Martin asserted, particularly for programs like Social Security. Martin argues that this practice should either be eliminated or made meaningful in terms of numbers. The long waiting time for spouses and minor children also contributes significantly to illegal immigration.
    
    
  • Read also the Keynote Address section of the document to get a better sense of what role immigrants play in the macro economy of the U.S.

 

[Unkotare]

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

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

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

Who?

 

[Unkotare]

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.

Your views are nonsensical.

If you allow the children born to illegals to stay, the parents ALWAYS stay.

You don't "allow" US citizens to stay in their own country. We need to control who comes into our country in the first place.

 

[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.

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

I cannot say what their citizenship policy was prior to 1977. What information have you showing that Canada's policy differed prior to 1977?

I can find no other country that has birthright citizenship other than the USA and Canada thanks to your link. Here is the specific part of the law that pertains to 1977 so that is a fairly recent change.

The Right to Citizenship
Marginal noteersons who are citizens

• 3 (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if
  • (a) the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977;

Damn, man. Will you please stop assuming that the information that comes your way is all there is to know about a topic? Was merely checking Wiki too much for you to do to confirm whether folks born in Canada prior to 1977 were automatically deemed Canadians?

By the 1930s and the outbreak of World War II, Canada's naturalization laws consisted of a hodgepodge of confusing acts, which still retained the term "British subject" as the designation for "Canadian nationals". This eventually conflicted with the nationalism that arose following the First and Second World Wars, and the accompanying desire to have the Dominion of Canada's sovereign status reflected in distinct national symbols (such as flags, anthem, seal, etc.). This, plus the muddled nature of existing nationality law, prompted the enactment of the "Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946", which took effect on 1 January 1947. On that date, "Canadian citizenship" was conferred on most Canadians previously classified as "British subjects". Subsequently, on 1 April 1949, Canadian nationality law was extended to Newfoundland, upon the former British colony joining the Canadian confederation as the Province of Newfoundland.

In general, everyone born in Canada from 1947 or later acquires Canadian citizenship at birth. In one 2008 case, a girl born to a Ugandan mother aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Boston was deemed a Canadian citizen for customs purposes because she was born over Canada's airspace.​

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

Your views are nonsensical.

If you allow the children born to illegals to stay, the parents ALWAYS stay.

You don't "allow" US citizens to stay in their own country. We need to control who comes into our country in the first place.

Illegals aren't US citizens.

Again, I am talking about illegals being allowed to stay via their anchor baby children.

Without reinterpreting the 14th amendment we don't control anything when it comes to immigration.

 

[westwall]

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.

I cannot say what their citizenship policy was prior to 1977. What information have you showing that Canada's policy differed prior to 1977?

I can find no other country that has birthright citizenship other than the USA and Canada thanks to your link. Here is the specific part of the law that pertains to 1977 so that is a fairly recent change.

The Right to Citizenship
Marginal noteersons who are citizens

• 3 (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if
  • (a) the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977;

Damn, man. Will you please stop assuming that the information that comes your way is all there is to know about a topic? Was merely checking Wiki too much for you to do to confirm whether folks born in Canada prior to 1977 were automatically deemed Canadians?

By the 1930s and the outbreak of World War II, Canada's naturalization laws consisted of a hodgepodge of confusing acts, which still retained the term "British subject" as the designation for "Canadian nationals". This eventually conflicted with the nationalism that arose following the First and Second World Wars, and the accompanying desire to have the Dominion of Canada's sovereign status reflected in distinct national symbols (such as flags, anthem, seal, etc.). This, plus the muddled nature of existing nationality law, prompted the enactment of the "Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946", which took effect on 1 January 1947. On that date, "Canadian citizenship" was conferred on most Canadians previously classified as "British subjects". Subsequently, on 1 April 1949, Canadian nationality law was extended to Newfoundland, upon the former British colony joining the Canadian confederation as the Province of Newfoundland.

In general, everyone born in Canada from 1947 or later acquires Canadian citizenship at birth. In one 2008 case, a girl born to a Ugandan mother aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Boston was deemed a Canadian citizen for customs purposes because she was born over Canada's airspace.​

I don't use wiki because it isn't a reliable source. In your own post you will note that it says "in general", that is not true. The law that made that true went into effect on the date I showed. That is from the Canadian government website which you provided a link for.

 

[320 Years of History]

Birthright citizenship? Canada.

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

I cannot say what their citizenship policy was prior to 1977. What information have you showing that Canada's policy differed prior to 1977?

I can find no other country that has birthright citizenship other than the USA and Canada thanks to your link. Here is the specific part of the law that pertains to 1977 so that is a fairly recent change.

The Right to Citizenship
Marginal noteersons who are citizens

• 3 (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if
  • (a) the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977;

Damn, man. Will you please stop assuming that the information that comes your way is all there is to know about a topic? Was merely checking Wiki too much for you to do to confirm whether folks born in Canada prior to 1977 were automatically deemed Canadians?

By the 1930s and the outbreak of World War II, Canada's naturalization laws consisted of a hodgepodge of confusing acts, which still retained the term "British subject" as the designation for "Canadian nationals". This eventually conflicted with the nationalism that arose following the First and Second World Wars, and the accompanying desire to have the Dominion of Canada's sovereign status reflected in distinct national symbols (such as flags, anthem, seal, etc.). This, plus the muddled nature of existing nationality law, prompted the enactment of the "Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946", which took effect on 1 January 1947. On that date, "Canadian citizenship" was conferred on most Canadians previously classified as "British subjects". Subsequently, on 1 April 1949, Canadian nationality law was extended to Newfoundland, upon the former British colony joining the Canadian confederation as the Province of Newfoundland.

In general, everyone born in Canada from 1947 or later acquires Canadian citizenship at birth. In one 2008 case, a girl born to a Ugandan mother aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Boston was deemed a Canadian citizen for customs purposes because she was born over Canada's airspace.​

I don't use wiki because it isn't a reliable source. In your own post you will note that it says "in general", that is not true. The law that made that true went into effect on the date I showed. That is from the Canadian government website which you provided a link for.

Fine, you just keep thinking that. Go to Canada some day and try to convince them you are correct in thinking it too. They'll laugh you into ignominy and right back to the "westwall" from whence you came.

 

[Correll]

That is the current interpretation of the Law, by the Supreme Court.

I think it is a flawed, even stupid ruling that should be reversed.

That is not the ruling of the SCOTUS.

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.
1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “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.”

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

• Is born in the United States
• Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
• Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States
• Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]
As of 2015, the “United States” includes all inhabited territories except American Samoa and Swain Island
United States nationality law

These conditions are all inclusive, that is each one must be met and failure to meet one of them disqualifies one for citizenship by birth, at least according to Constitutional case law.
The disqualifier that a persons parents cannot be a diplomat or official of a foreign government is not so well known, and our State Department under Obama is obscuring this restriction. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship-diplomats

What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile AND residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

169 US 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark | OpenJurist

But what is the meaning of "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States"?
"Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.

Law Dictionary: What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary) What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)

Just because one resides in the USA does not mean that one has DOMICILE in the USA, and to have birthright citizenship, according to Wong, one must have BOTH legal Domicile and residence. Illegal aliens do not have legal Domicile in the USA, so one can challenge their birthright citizenship but all states today give them citizenship anyway. That can change by a simple change of law at the state level.

And SCOTUS also recognized in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immmediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.
"93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?
That is addressed in Section 96:
"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. "

An alien is not considered to have legal domicile in the United States if they are not here with the permission of the United States and illegal aliens are not here with said permission and therefore their children born here are not subject to the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.

If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under any and all legal jurisdiction of US law, then why are illegals and legal aliens both not eligible for birthright citizenship if born on US territories of American Samoa or Swain Island?

Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly the US government has jurisdiction on its own territory in the Samoa Islands, but aliens do not get citizenship if born in those territories.
Why if Plyler ruled that jurisdiction = birthright citizenship?

For reference:
US Code - Subchapter III: NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
169 US 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark | OpenJurist
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/05/plyler-v-doe-1982-and-jurisdiction/
INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985)
Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

Very well argued Jim.

But all Dem appointed Justices are going to ignore the actual law to just do what they think advances "progress".


And some conservative judges would be afraid to over turn "precedence".

 

[Correll]

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. All this arguing does not change in any way the FACT that many babies were born in many parts of the US to many kinds of parents today and EVERY one of them is a US citizen; every bit as much and every bit as legitimately and fully a true and legal US citizen as anyone posting on this thread. A true, legal, indisputable FACT.

If some people think the Constitution should be amended, get to work trying to see it happen; but all the typing, harping, hating, and disrespecting that may be posted here won't change a thing.

.

That is the current interpretation of the Law, by the Supreme Court.

I think it is a flawed, even stupid ruling that should be reversed.

And your opinion changes reality 0.00%.

I never claimed otherwise.

Now if Trump is elected because of my OPINION combined with the OPINION of a majority of voters, then my opinion might end up changing reality.


Again, it's red, white and boo


"It was imperfectly odd. It was strangely unsettling. It was uniquely American.

On a balmy early Saturday summer evening, the U.S soccer team played for a prestigious championship in a U.S. stadium ... and was smothered in boos.

Its fans were vastly outnumbered. Its goalkeeper was bathed in a chanted obscenity. Even its national anthem was filled with the blowing of air horns and bouncing of beach balls.

Most of these hostile visitors didn't live in another country. Most, in fact, were not visitors at all, many of them being U.S. residents whose lives are here but whose sporting souls remain elsewhere."


"
"Obviously ... the support that Mexico has on the night like tonight makes it a home game for them," said U.S. Coach Bob Bradley, choosing his words carefully. "It's part of something we have to deal with on the night."

It wasn't just something. It was everything. I've never heard more consistent loud cheering for one team here, from the air horns to the " Ole" chants with each Mexico pass, all set to the soundtrack of a low throbbing roar that began in the parking lot about six hours before the game and continued long into the night.

Even when the U.S. scored the first two goals, the Mexico cheers stayed strong, perhaps inspiring El Tri to four consecutive goals against a U.S. team that seemed dazed and confused. Then when it ended, and the Mexican players had danced across the center of the field in giddy wonder while the U.S. players had staggered to the sidelines in disillusionment, the madness continued.

Because nobody left. Rather amazingly, the Mexico fans kept bouncing and cheering under headbands and sombreros, nobody moving an inch, the giant Rose Bowl jammed for a postgame trophy ceremony for perhaps the first time in its history.

And, yes, when the U.S. team was announced one final time, it was once again booed.

"We're not booing the country, we're booing the team," Sanchez said. "There is a big difference.""




Bullshit Sanchez, your heart is MEXICAN, only your paperwork is American.

A soccer game? Really?


.....

An American city is a Home Game for the opposing team.

An crowd made up supposedly of "Americans" is heckling the National Anthem.

Yes. A soccer game. The behavior of the "Americans" at this soccer game shows that the only thing American about them is their paperwork.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

Your views are nonsensical.

If you allow the children born to illegals to stay, the parents ALWAYS stay.

You don't "allow" US citizens to stay in their own country. We need to control who comes into our country in the first place.

Illegals aren't US citizens......

People born in the US ARE US citizens.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Being Born here should make you a citizen. End of story.

 

[Correll]

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.

Your views are nonsensical.

If you allow the children born to illegals to stay, the parents ALWAYS stay.

You don't "allow" US citizens to stay in their own country. We need to control who comes into our country in the first place.

Illegals aren't US citizens......

People born in the US ARE US citizens.

Except for all the exceptions.

 

[Correll]

Being Born here should make you a citizen. End of story.

You really gave that a lot of thought?