Anchor-Babies v. 14th Amendment

[JBeukema]

As much as I disagree with the concept and use of anchor babies and would like to see it addressed, goldcatt is correct. You CANNOT pretend to be a conservative or believe in the constitution if you are willing to violate it when there is something that you do not agree with within it. The process needs to be changed but that change MUST come in the form of another amendment, NOT judicial activism or congressional sidestepping. Do not come here and say you defend the constitution and then walk all over it.

It was judicial activism that made anchor babies possible

 

[JBeukema]

As much as I disagree with the concept and use of anchor babies and would like to see it addressed, goldcatt is correct. You CANNOT pretend to be a conservative or believe in the constitution if you are willing to violate it when there is something that you do not agree with within it. The process needs to be changed but that change MUST come in the form of another amendment, NOT judicial activism or congressional sidestepping. Do not come here and say you defend the constitution and then walk all over it.

I'm not a conservative, more of a moderate when it comes to constitutional issues, but you're absolutely correct. But even most liberals would agree with you here. It's pretty clear across the board the clause says what it says and to change it, you have to tackle it head on and amend it. Sidestepping, ducking and gesturing for the cameras all matter absolutely zilch in the end. And if we ignore or evade our own laws, what does that make us?

Which is where people start disagreeing on the "whether" and the "how", but at least most of us are coming from the same starting point. That's rare enough these days!

The 'how' is by militarizing the border and shooting anyone who tries to cross illegally


We've already had Mexican military forces cross the border and train their weapons on our LEOs

border issue = national security and military issue

No more fucking around when it comes to enforcing our existence as a sovereign nation

 

[jillian]

As much as I disagree with the concept and use of anchor babies and would like to see it addressed, goldcatt is correct. You CANNOT pretend to be a conservative or believe in the constitution if you are willing to violate it when there is something that you do not agree with within it. The process needs to be changed but that change MUST come in the form of another amendment, NOT judicial activism or congressional sidestepping. Do not come here and say you defend the constitution and then walk all over it.

It was judicial activism that made anchor babies possible

I don't agree. I think it was the language of the amendment that does what it's intended.

I do agree that we need to do a better job closing our borders... which has nothing to do with perverting our laws because of a specific problem.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The GOP needs to focus on stopping the flood of illegals, and their illegal votes, from creating a new anti-US voter bloc. The 14th Amendment is being mis-interpreted to allow the babies of non-citizent to become US citizens.

We need Congress to work on resolving the anchor-baby problem. Two illegals can't make a legal citizen.

Lets take a poll...

The 14th ammendment was to protect the children of slaves, people who were FORCED to enter the united states and work as slave labor.

It was not to protect children born of foreign nationals within the borders of the USA.

So yeah, you know my vote .

 

[JBeukema]

As much as I disagree with the concept and use of anchor babies and would like to see it addressed, goldcatt is correct. You CANNOT pretend to be a conservative or believe in the constitution if you are willing to violate it when there is something that you do not agree with within it. The process needs to be changed but that change MUST come in the form of another amendment, NOT judicial activism or congressional sidestepping. Do not come here and say you defend the constitution and then walk all over it.

It was judicial activism that made anchor babies possible

I don't agree. I think it was the language of the amendment that does what it's intended.

It was never intended to undermine our sovereignty. That's why it took so long for judicial activism to allow anchor babies after we began limiting immigration.

 

[jillian]

It was judicial activism that made anchor babies possible

I don't agree. I think it was the language of the amendment that does what it's intended.

It was never intended to undermine our sovereignty. That's why it took so long for judicial activism to allow anchor babies after we began limiting immigration.

it doesn't undermine our sovereignty.

people born here are and should be citizens. the only alternative is a jus sanguine, which would allow them to decide that anyone they don't like isn't a citizen anymore.

that didn't work so well in germany,did it?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I don't agree. I think it was the language of the amendment that does what it's intended.

It was never intended to undermine our sovereignty. That's why it took so long for judicial activism to allow anchor babies after we began limiting immigration.

it doesn't undermine our sovereignty.

people born here are and should be citizens. the only alternative is a jus sanguine, which would allow them to decide that anyone they don't like isn't a citizen anymore.

that didn't work so well in germany,did it?

Actually with our loose immigration enforcement policies it does undermine our sovereignty.

Your comparison with germany is a total strawman it the truest definition of the term, it has NO relation to what is being discussed here as it would not affect children born to AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Under your mindset someone from china could fly over here, pregnant, have their baby and that baby would immediately be considered an american citizen. That is not what the 14th ammendment's original intent was.

Its original intent was to prevent the children of slaves from being denied citizenship since their parents were FORCED to come to america as labor.

Its original intent does not cover the children of illegal immigrants who CHOSE to come to america as labor.

 

[Meister]

When the 14th Amendment was adopted, I don't think the legislature ever foresaw the problems they created with the wording of it. I am as sure they never intended it to be used as it is today.

 

[goldcatt]

As much as I disagree with the concept and use of anchor babies and would like to see it addressed, goldcatt is correct. You CANNOT pretend to be a conservative or believe in the constitution if you are willing to violate it when there is something that you do not agree with within it. The process needs to be changed but that change MUST come in the form of another amendment, NOT judicial activism or congressional sidestepping. Do not come here and say you defend the constitution and then walk all over it.

It was judicial activism that made anchor babies possible

Not at all. Go back and read the clarification of "direct and immediate allegiance" as it applies to sovereign jurisdiction in the 1884 case you cited on the other thread, Elk v. Wilkins (I included a link to the decision and quoted some of the pertinent language in my much longer winded response over there: http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...mmigration-clarification-act.html#post3132425).

Although the decision is exclusively limited to Indian law and is now obsolete, it does a good job of setting out the basics of territorial and sovereign jurisdiction as it relates to birthright citizenship. It's the plain meaning of the language, as applied to a situation that didn't exist when it was drafted. So if you don't like the way it applies, change it - with an amendment.

 

[xotoxi]

Anchor babbies?

 

[goldcatt]

When the 14th Amendment was adopted, I don't think the legislature ever foresaw the problems they created with the wording of it. I am as sure they never intended it to be used as it is today.

I'm sure you're probably right. That whole lack of a crystal ball thing is a bitch, isn't it?

And then the Courts have to decide how to take an old concept and apply it to new facts and situations that were never dreamed of at the time. Then they get kicked in the pants as "activist" when people don't like what the words say and how they apply to a situation they were never written to cover, but nobody gets around to writing an amendment to change what they don't like. It's an old, old tale.

 

[jillian]

When the 14th Amendment was adopted, I don't think the legislature ever foresaw the problems they created with the wording of it. I am as sure they never intended it to be used as it is today.

that may be. but again, the alternative is bleak.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The issue is dead on arrival. The Hispanics are the largest minority in the country. Any set of politicians that try (1) to end anchor babies and (2) deport en masse the illegal parents of legal children are (3) going to be voted out of office forever.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

When the 14th Amendment was adopted, I don't think the legislature ever foresaw the problems they created with the wording of it. I am as sure they never intended it to be used as it is today.

that may be. but again, the alternative is bleak.

What do you mean the alternative is bleak? Please explain before I respond incorrectly .

 

[jillian]

When the 14th Amendment was adopted, I don't think the legislature ever foresaw the problems they created with the wording of it. I am as sure they never intended it to be used as it is today.

that may be. but again, the alternative is bleak.

What do you mean the alternative is bleak? Please explain before I respond incorrectly .

i wouldn't worry about responding incorrectly. i'm sure i've done my share of that. but since you asked, the way i see it, there are three ways to become a citizen, by birth, by naturalization or by blood (e.g., one's ancestry). in this country, citizenship is by birth or naturalization. if birth is no longer a basis for citizenship, then what replaces it? the answer, to my mind is that blood will then determine who becomes a citizen. in country after country, jus sanguine (law of the blood) has been used to divest jews of citizenship. that is what they did in germany. you can understand why it makes me uncomfortable and that is what i meant when i said the alternative is bleak.

this country was supposed to be different from every other. it was supposed to welcome everyone with open arms. that is why my grandparents came here. i'd hate to see that ruined because of hysteria.

do you know what percentage of our population is illegal immigrants? approximately 1.5% according to the sources i looked at today (though that number may have changed slightly). that number is about the same as the percentage of the population that is jewish, just to put it in perspective for you. do you think we should allow hysteria to govern what we do for 1.5%? or should we find ways to close our borders and then give people already here who have committed no crimes and who finish two years of college or serve in our military a path to citizenship?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

that may be. but again, the alternative is bleak.

What do you mean the alternative is bleak? Please explain before I respond incorrectly .

i wouldn't worry about responding incorrectly. i'm sure i've done my share of that. but since you asked, the way i see it, there are three ways to become a citizen, by birth, by naturalization or by blood (e.g., one's ancestry). in this country, citizenship is by birth or naturalization. if birth is no longer a basis for citizenship, then what replaces it? the answer, to my mind is that blood will then determine who becomes a citizen. in country after country, jus sanguine (law of the blood) has been used to divest jews of citizenship. that is what they did in germany and you can understand why it makes me uncomfortable.

this country was supposed to be different from every other. it was supposed to welcome everyone with open arms. that is why my grandparents came here. i'd hate to see that ruined because of hysteria.

do you know what percentage of our population is illegal immigrants? approximately 1.5% according to the sources i looked at today (though that number may have changed slightly). that number is about the same as the percentage of the population that is jewish, just to put it in perspective for you. do you think we should allow hysteria to govern what we do for 1.5%? or should we find ways to close our borders and then give people already here who have committed no crimes and who finish two years of college or serve in our military a path to citizenship?

Jillian if we completely eliminated the 14th ammendment as if it never existed you would still be a citizen by birth (AKA blood) as long as your parents are american citizens. You would still be able to immigrate and be naturalized too. I feel you are arguing something that is not related ot the issue in an effort to make the point that we need the 14th ammendment and its current interpretation which creates/allows for anchor baby situation.

In light of this I dont think your final 2 paragraphs relate to the conversation at all. I am not trying to be a jerk but trying to get you thinking here. People would still be welcome to legally immigrate with open arms and the children of these legal immigrant citizens, since the parents are legal immigrants who became citizens, would also be citizens.

By doing away with the 14th ammendment the concerns you raised would not be issues at all. I really dont see it at all.

I think many just don't understand and are being confused as to what getting rid of or ammending the 14th ammedment would do so i'll clarify.

Getting rid of or ammending the 14th ammendment would ONLY ensure that the children of foreign nationals, who give birth while on united states soil, do not become american citizens by default. For example, If 2 germans were visiting america on vacation and the german wife had a baby that baby would NOT become an american citizen.

If you want I can go into the difference between the slaves that were forced to come here to work from africa and the illegal immigrants who chose to come here and work illegally from around the world.

 

[JBeukema]

if birth is no longer a basis for citizenship, then what replaces it?

Who said anything of ending birthright citizenship for those born to citizens?

the answer, to my mind is that blood will then determine who becomes a citizen. in country after country, jus sanguine (law of the blood) has been used to divest jews of citizenship.

Oh yes, any attempt to stop illegal immigration can only mean Hitler has risen from the grave and the NAZIs are back

this country was supposed to be different from every other. it was supposed to welcome everyone with open arms.

We do. But you have to follow the rules.

do you know what percentage of our population is illegal immigrants? approximately 1.5% according to the sources i looked at today (though that number may have changed slightly). that number is about the same as the percentage of the population that is jewish

Oh yes, the Jewish victim card again- everyone is a NAZI!

Hey, Jill, since you want to play the holocaust card, where are the museums for the Hittites, the Ammonites, the Jesubites, and the Moabites? Where are their paperclips and memorials?

 

[jillian]

if birth is no longer a basis for citizenship, then what replaces it?

Who said anything of ending birthright citizenship for those born to citizens?

the answer, to my mind is that blood will then determine who becomes a citizen. in country after country, jus sanguine (law of the blood) has been used to divest jews of citizenship.

Oh yes, any attempt to stop illegal immigration can only mean Hitler has risen from the grave and the NAZIs are back

this country was supposed to be different from every other. it was supposed to welcome everyone with open arms.

We do. But you have to follow the rules.

do you know what percentage of our population is illegal immigrants? approximately 1.5% according to the sources i looked at today (though that number may have changed slightly). that number is about the same as the percentage of the population that is jewish

Oh yes, the Jewish victim card again- everyone is a NAZI!

Hey, Jill, since you want to play the holocaust card, where are the museums for the Hittites, the Ammonites, the Jesubites, and the Moabites? Where are their paperclips and memorials?

1. i was asked a question. i gave an answer. i don't recall needing to ask your permission to do that.

2. s'matter, JB, you all cranky because i called you on your jew-bashing BS.

3. someone who thinks i'm supposed to apologize for the hitites has no credibility.

4. only a freaking imbecile would compare something that happened in modern times with war between tribes thousands of years ago.

thanks for playing.

 

[JBeukema]

So killing Jews is bad but killing Hittites is good?

You people sicken me

 

[JBeukema]

Someone who compares requiring immigrants to obey the law to the holocaust has no credibility