Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?

[MrDVS1]

If at least one of the parents is not a citizen then their children should not be.

Important distinction. But I would grant citizenship to those who have at least one citizen parent. Of course, if they're not married I would deport the alien and make them go through what every other family must to get their spouse to this country. With an extra penalty of course.

We already give citizenship to children of citizens, even if it's only one parent that is a citizen.

 

[asterism]

I think anyone born here should have the option of being a citizen, but that doesn't create an obligation to take care of their parents.

 

[Conservative65]

Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?

I support the concept but an amendment is not needed. What needs to happen is the 14th amendment being misused to do that has to stop. The clause in the 14th that has been misused for that purpose, has served it's purpose and it was to overrule the Dred Scott decision which considered blacks as property rather than people. Perhaps those who misuse the 14th should try and get one passed to say that simply being born here gives citizenship even if the parents are illegal.

 

[Derideo_Te]

the only thing that needs to happen is to clarify what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.

Everyone within the 50 states and the various territories are subject to the jurisdiction of the Law of the Land. That applies to citizens, green card holders, people here with visas and illegal immigrants. Everyone is subject to the Law of that Land, period.

And while we are clarifying let's make sure that we understand what that means. Illegal immigrants are entitled to due process rights, free speech rights, equality under the law and privacy rights. Everyone here legally is entitled to all Constitutional rights with the notable exceptions of voting, jury duty and holding certain elected offices that are for citizens only.

 

[Publius1787]

If at least one of the parents is not a citizen then their children should not be.

Important distinction. But I would grant citizenship to those who have at least one citizen parent. Of course, if they're not married I would deport the alien and make them go through what every other family must to get their spouse to this country. With an extra penalty of course.

We already give citizenship to children of citizens, even if it's only one parent that is a citizen.

Yeah, that wasn't always the case. Hence the 14th Amendment. I don't usually type this ... but "Duh."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

>

Yes.

Oh you don't have to repeal the 14th amendment, the only thing that needs to happen is to clarify what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. If you are here legally (whether visa, workers permit, green card, etc.) or the child born here of an existing citizen you are by birth a citizen. On the other hand if you are here as a diplomatic representative of a foreign power or have no legal status to be in this country, then a child born is not a citizen.


>>>>

The 14th Amendment would in fact need to be repealed because its vast case law would conflict with the new 'amendment.' where the Constitution and its Amendments exist only in the context of their case law. Indeed, there would need to be two 'amendments,' one repealing the 14th and another enacting its reckless, irresponsible, and unwarranted provision.

This also ignores 14th Amendment jurisprudence recognizing the inalienable rights that manifest as a consequence of our humanity, placing those rights out of the reach of capricious politicians, bureaucrats, and simple majorities. When one comes into existence as a person within the jurisdiction of the United States, he is clothed in those inalienable rights as a person, and is a citizen consequently, regardless the status of his parents.

Moreover, many are clearly unaware of the fact that the 14th Amendment was ratified in part to render null and void the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because African-Americans were brought to the United States as slaves, they were not members of the political community “formed and brought into existence by the Constitution," and were consequently not citizens of the United States and not entitled to Constitutional protections. Those seeking to destroy citizenship at birth in essence seek to reinstate the Dred Scott 'rationale,' that because those in the United States absent authorization are not members of the 'political community,' they, and subsequently their children, are not entitled to Constitutional protections, and citizenship rights for those children.

Clearly advocacy of such an 'amendment' is motivated solely by hostility toward a class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.

That has nothing to do with it. You act like it would be punishment for kids to inherit the citizenship of their parents. Birthright citizenship for kids born to illegal aliens was never meant to bestowed on them by the writers of the 14th Amendment.

It has everything to do with it.

And it is not an 'act' but a fact, seeking to deny citizenship to those born in the United States is reckless and irresponsible, designed to be punitive against the children born here because of their parents' citizenship status, where advocates of such an 'amendment' wish only to create a 'disincentive' to discourage further immigration of persons perceived by some 'undesirable.' This 'amendment' is proposed in bad faith, predicated on ignorance and fear, would not comport with the overall intent of the Constitution and its case law to comprehensively protect the rights of all persons in the United States, and would poison the Constitution with its inherent ignorance and fear.

This is why in fact the Constitution prohibits punitive measures against children as a consequence of their parents' actions. See: Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al. (1972).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not one state would ratify it.

 

[Publius1787]

Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.

That has nothing to do with it. You act like it would be punishment for kids to inherit the citizenship of their parents. Birthright citizenship for kids born to illegal aliens was never meant to bestowed on them by the writers of the 14th Amendment.

It has everything to do with it.

And it is not an 'act' but a fact, seeking to deny citizenship to those born in the United States is reckless and irresponsible, designed to be punitive against the children born here because of their parents' citizenship status, where advocates of such an 'amendment' wish only to create a 'disincentive' to discourage further immigration of persons perceived by some 'undesirable.' This 'amendment' is proposed in bad faith, predicated on ignorance and fear, would not comport with the overall intent of the Constitution and its case law to comprehensively protect the rights of all persons in the United States, and would poison the Constitution with its inherent ignorance and fear.

This is why in fact the Constitution prohibits punitive measures against children as a consequence of their parents' actions. See: Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al. (1972).

Yeah, its certainly fair to those people who go through the citizenship process legally. No, the only people who support what you do want an impoverished welfare voting block of reliable leftist votes.

 

[Publius1787]

Not one state would ratify it.

Now that's certainly not true.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not one state would ratify it.

Now that's certainly not true.

That certainly is true. Almost all Hispanics, a great majority of women, the Dems, and responsible Republicans will vote against such libertarian silliness.

 

[Publius1787]

Not one state would ratify it.

Now that's certainly not true.

That certainly is true. Almost all Hispanics, a great majority of women, the Dems, and responsible Republicans will vote against such libertarian silliness.

Blacks and Whites alike would approve it resoundingly.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Blacks and Whites alike would approve it resoundingly.

Facts not even remotely in evidence!

 

[Publius1787]

Blacks and Whites alike would approve it resoundingly.

Facts not even remotely in evidence!

Nor are they in the opposite

 

[Derideo_Te]

Blacks and Whites alike would approve it resoundingly.

Facts not even remotely in evidence!

Nor are they in the opposite

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you are pulling your imaginary "support" for this farcical amendment from your nether regions.

 

[Publius1787]

Blacks and Whites alike would approve it resoundingly.

Facts not even remotely in evidence!

Nor are they in the opposite

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you are pulling your imaginary "support" for this farcical amendment from your nether regions.

Indeed, nothing to go on but a gut feeling of the American electorate. What, you expected me to command otherwise? Listen, I'm an intellectually honest person. I said there is no evidence in either direction. However, you chose to question me as opposed to question the opposite. That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.

Upholding the Constitution is neither intellectually dishonest nor biased.

That you had to resort to such baseless allegations exposes the weakness of your position.

 

[Publius1787]

That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.

Upholding the Constitution is neither intellectually dishonest nor biased.

That you had to resort to such baseless allegations exposes the weakness of your position.

I was unaware that the constitution forbade amendments. I was also unaware that the Constitution considered those who advocate for such an amendment intellectually dishonest. Please point the that clause of the U.S. Constitution that says these things. After all, you're the one claiming the mantle of upholding the U.S. Constitution, although, I seriously doubt you've ever made the attempt to read it.

If my proposition was baseless then so was the opposite. And yet you ignore the opposite and attack mine. Why? Because you have a bias toward the opposite argument which is equally improvable, though, ignored by you. That's intellectual dishonesty. See how I used fact and reason to dismantle your craziness? You should try it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Publius, Protectionist, HealthMyths

 

[Derideo_Te]

That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.

Upholding the Constitution is neither intellectually dishonest nor biased.

That you had to resort to such baseless allegations exposes the weakness of your position.

I was unaware that the constitution forbade amendments. I was also unaware that the Constitution considered those who advocate for such an amendment intellectually dishonest. Please point the that clause of the U.S. Constitution that says these things.

If my proposition was baseless then so was the opposite. And yet you ignore the opposite and attack mine. Why? Because you have a bias toward the opposite argument which is equally improvable, though, ignored by you. That's intellectual dishonesty.

Your fallacious strawman is duly noted and ignored!