If being born in the United States border does not make you a US Citizen what does?

[2Parties]

Nope. It doesn't. If you track anyone's family lineage back far enough, you will find the original immigrants in their family (this is, of course, theoretical, since the records aren't available to literally track everyone's family back that far). At that point, you can ascertain whether or not they came to this country legally, thereby becoming legal citizens and conveying legal citizenship on their offspring.

Sounds like a very intrusive and expensive government project.

Now obviously, we aren't going to sit down and backtrack everyone's family history.

Why not? Why are some people treated differently?

I am a US citizen because, at some point in time, my ancestors came here by legally accepted means and became US citizens by legally accepted means, and all of the generations of my family thereafter were then born on US soil to US citizens.

And a child born to an illegal alien mother in the US borders is also a US citizen. You are not a citizen because your ancestors legality of citizenship and you know it.

All anyone is asking is that that be the case for everyone else claiming US citizenship by birth.

But it's not and you are not going to find a legal and logically consistent way around it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

OK people who think this is so clear please clear up these common scenarios for me that would happen if anchor baby citizenship was abolished.

1. Both parents are US citizens, but both were anchor babies born in 1990 (not citizens to you). Are these people no longer citizens and is their newborn baby (born in the US) not a citizen?

2. US Citizen women is impregnated by illegal alien man. Are these children citizens if born in the US?

3. Non-US Citizen women is impregnated by US citizen man. Are these children citizens if born in the US?

4. Where does lineage of anchor baby citizenship end? Never? 2 generations? What about mixes of citizens and non-citizens?

First of all, it should be pointed out that even if the "anchor baby" ability was abolished, it would not be abolished retroactively. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's even allowed in US law to make something like that retroactive. So anyone who already was accorded US citizenship as an "anchor baby" would still be a US citizen. It just wouldn't be possible for anyone ELSE to acquire citizenship in that way.

Being a US citizen does not require that BOTH of your parents be US citizens (in the cases where that's the operative question). It only requires that ONE of them be. If, for example, I were to go to England, have a fling with some English guy, and get pregnant, my own US citizenship would convey citizenship to the child.

 

[2Parties]

First of all, it should be pointed out that even if the "anchor baby" ability was abolished, it would not be abolished retroactively. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's even allowed in US law to make something like that retroactive. So anyone who already was accorded US citizenship as an "anchor baby" would still be a US citizen. It just wouldn't be possible for anyone ELSE to acquire citizenship in that way.

First question answered. Some anti-anchor baby people probably disagree though...

Being a US citizen does not require that BOTH of your parents be US citizens (in the cases where that's the operative question). It only requires that ONE of them be. If, for example, I were to go to England, have a fling with some English guy, and get pregnant, my own US citizenship would convey citizenship to the child.

OK, but what if you were an illegal mexican woman and claimed that the father of your anchor baby child was a US citizen (this would be the common argument if only the father was required for citizenship)? Government forced DNA checks of the baby and suspected father? Multiple court cases?

Not as simple as you and others want it to be...

 

[PatekPhilippe]

First of all, it should be pointed out that even if the "anchor baby" ability was abolished, it would not be abolished retroactively. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's even allowed in US law to make something like that retroactive. So anyone who already was accorded US citizenship as an "anchor baby" would still be a US citizen. It just wouldn't be possible for anyone ELSE to acquire citizenship in that way.

First question answered. Some anti-anchor baby people probably disagree though...

Being a US citizen does not require that BOTH of your parents be US citizens (in the cases where that's the operative question). It only requires that ONE of them be. If, for example, I were to go to England, have a fling with some English guy, and get pregnant, my own US citizenship would convey citizenship to the child.

OK, but what if you were an illegal mexican woman and claimed that the father of your anchor baby child was a US citizen (this would be the common argument if only the father was required for citizenship)? Government forced DNA checks of the baby and suspected father? Multiple court cases?

Not as simple as you and others want it to be...

Funny you should mention DNA....when I applied for citizenship for my daughter born to my Thai wife and I...THAT'S EXACTLY the burden of proof required to establish the fact that ONE OF THE PARENTS IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!

Try again. So far your failing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nope. It doesn't. If you track anyone's family lineage back far enough, you will find the original immigrants in their family (this is, of course, theoretical, since the records aren't available to literally track everyone's family back that far). At that point, you can ascertain whether or not they came to this country legally, thereby becoming legal citizens and conveying legal citizenship on their offspring.

Sounds like a very intrusive and expensive government project.

Now obviously, we aren't going to sit down and backtrack everyone's family history.

Why not? Why are some people treated differently?

I am a US citizen because, at some point in time, my ancestors came here by legally accepted means and became US citizens by legally accepted means, and all of the generations of my family thereafter were then born on US soil to US citizens.

And a child born to an illegal alien mother in the US borders is also a US citizen. You are not a citizen because your ancestors legality of citizenship and you know it.

All anyone is asking is that that be the case for everyone else claiming US citizenship by birth.

But it's not and you are not going to find a legal and logically consistent way around it.

Okay, spare me the cherrypicking cut-and-paste so that you can pretend we're having the conversation you WANT to have, instead of the one we are. Pull this bullshit stunt again, and you can kiss any semblance of respect for you as a serious poster goodbye.

Sounds like a very intrusive and expensive government project.

Which is exactly why, in the parts of my post that you chose to cut out and pretend didn't exist, I said that this was THEORETICAL, not something I was suggesting actually be done.

Why not? Why are some people treated differently?

I don't even know what the smuck THIS is intended to mean in the context of the post you want to pretend I made, since it means nothing whatsoever in the context of the post I ACTUALLY made. I can only assume this was your lame-ass attempt to find something to get ass-chapped about.

And a child born to an illegal alien mother in the US borders is also a US citizen. You are not a citizen because your ancestors legality of citizenship and you know it.

I never once said that children born in the US to illegal immigrant mothers were not currently accorded US citizenship, and YOU know THAT, so you will kindly spare me the bullshit, disingenuous attempts to pretend, via cherrypicking, that I said anything of the sort.

You started this thread - and please believe that this will be the ONLY time that I do you the courtesy of going back and tracing the origins of the conversation for you in order to clear up deliberate attempts to tangle it and wander down tangents, so DO NOT do it again - asking what else conveyed citizenship, in the opinions of those who want to abolish "anchor babies", aside from simply being born here. You also asked that question again by saying, "What makes them a US Citizen? It always comes back to being born in the US border every time." I answered that question by telling you what ELSE there is besides merely being squirted out by one's mother on US soil.

But it's not and you are not going to find a legal and logically consistent way around it.

Did you want to talk about what people who wish to abolish "anchor baby" status are looking to achieve, or did you wish to have a circular, unproductive discussion about how things are done right now? Because I can tell you right now, if you're looking to discuss how people wish to change things, spouting lines like "That's not how it is" are pointless, and make your entire thread pointless.

I just TOLD you a legal and logically consistent way to deal with this, and your response was to cherrypick my post and attempt to pretend that I said something different than I did, and to ignore those things I said that you didn't wish to respond to.

So let me recap, and let's see if THIS time, you can muster up the intellectual cojones to deal with it honestly:

Change the law so that US citizenship is only conveyed to the children of those who are themselves US citizens, either by birth or by naturalization. That is how I and every other natural-born citizen who is not an "anchor baby" acquired citizenship, and it should be the only method by which someone becomes a natural-born US citizen.

It's simple, logical, and would be legal as soon as it was made a law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

First of all, it should be pointed out that even if the "anchor baby" ability was abolished, it would not be abolished retroactively. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's even allowed in US law to make something like that retroactive. So anyone who already was accorded US citizenship as an "anchor baby" would still be a US citizen. It just wouldn't be possible for anyone ELSE to acquire citizenship in that way.

First question answered. Some anti-anchor baby people probably disagree though...

Being a US citizen does not require that BOTH of your parents be US citizens (in the cases where that's the operative question). It only requires that ONE of them be. If, for example, I were to go to England, have a fling with some English guy, and get pregnant, my own US citizenship would convey citizenship to the child.

OK, but what if you were an illegal mexican woman and claimed that the father of your anchor baby child was a US citizen (this would be the common argument if only the father was required for citizenship)? Government forced DNA checks of the baby and suspected father? Multiple court cases?

Not as simple as you and others want it to be...

Prove who the father is, and Bob's your uncle. Can't prove it? Well, then, life sucks, doesn't it?

And why NOT have government-required DNA tests? The government has no problem ordering paternity tests for OTHER government services, so why not for citizenship?

Seems pretty simple to ME, albeit probably time-consuming.

 

[2Parties]

Funny you should mention DNA....when I applied for citizenship for my daughter born to my Thai wife and I...THAT'S EXACTLY the burden of proof required to establish the fact that ONE OF THE PARENTS IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!

Try again. So far your failing.

Was your daughter born in the United States?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Funny you should mention DNA....when I applied for citizenship for my daughter born to my Thai wife and I...THAT'S EXACTLY the burden of proof required to establish the fact that ONE OF THE PARENTS IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!

Try again. So far your failing.

Was your daughter born in the United States?

Who cares? The US government obviously already requires paternity tests in cases of citizenship, so why is it such an outrageous idea to use them after the abolition of "anchor babies"?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Funny you should mention DNA....when I applied for citizenship for my daughter born to my Thai wife and I...THAT'S EXACTLY the burden of proof required to establish the fact that ONE OF THE PARENTS IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!

Try again. So far your failing.

Was your daughter born in the United States?

Pointless question.....people who come into the country ILLEGALLY should have NO LEGAL RIGHTS to citizenship of their offspring...PERIOD! and the law should reflect that!

 

[2Parties]

Prove who the father is, and Bob's your uncle. Can't prove it? Well, then, life sucks, doesn't it?

If I'm the anchor baby born to a US father I guess I'm not a US citizen because my mother could not meet the requirements of your hypothetical situation (even though I really am a citizen under your law). Simple contradictions destroy your law (like most laws)...

And why NOT have government-required DNA tests?

Maybe because they are extremely intrusive? Maybe because I, as a US taxpayer, do not want to pay for them? Maybe because the constitution is clear as to who is a citizen or not?

Seems pretty simple to ME, albeit probably time-consuming.

It's not simple because people are naturally going to find loopholes, like the ones I pointed out. You will then be forced to reject citizens under your law because of the convoluted nature of it...

 

[2Parties]

Funny you should mention DNA....when I applied for citizenship for my daughter born to my Thai wife and I...THAT'S EXACTLY the burden of proof required to establish the fact that ONE OF THE PARENTS IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!

Try again. So far your failing.

Was your daughter born in the United States?

Pointless question.....people who come into the country ILLEGALLY should have NO LEGAL RIGHTS to citizenship of their offspring...PERIOD! and the law should reflect that!

I'll take that as a "NO" therefore your situation has NOTHING to do with anchor babies. Please bring relevant real life situations to the debate.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Was your daughter born in the United States?

Pointless question.....people who come into the country ILLEGALLY should have NO LEGAL RIGHTS to citizenship of their offspring...PERIOD! and the law should reflect that!

I'll take that as a "NO" therefore your situation has NOTHING to do with anchor babies. Please bring relevant real life situations to the debate.

You dumb ass...you said DNA is pointess and too expensive...I said it's already being used as proof of U.S. citizenship of parents of children born to 1 foreign parent or in foreign countries....wake up. I hope they pass a law that says you illegal fucktards get NOTHING!!!!!

 

[Flopper]

You won't you get a clear answer. If birth in the US does not make you a citizen then hundreds of millions of Americans will have no proof of citizenship since their birth certificate could not be used as proof.

First of all the Supreme Court would have to reinterpret the 14th amendment to exclude birth as grounds for citizenship. Congress would have to redefine the requirements for citizenship. Then there would have to be some kind of national id card indicating citizenship.

Don't worry. This isn't going to happen.

No, the first thing would be that we would have to pass a new amendment to the constitution negating Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

And just what would that new amendment say?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Prove who the father is, and Bob's your uncle. Can't prove it? Well, then, life sucks, doesn't it?

If I'm the anchor baby born to a US father I guess I'm not a US citizen because my mother could not meet the requirements of your hypothetical situation (even though I really am a citizen under your law). Simple contradictions destroy your law (like most laws)...

Yes, actually, you are NOT a US citizen if you do not meet the requirements of US citizenship. I fail to see where you have a problem with this. And no, you are not "really a US citizen under my law", because my law, as we have already established, requires PROOF of entitlement to citizenship in order to have it.

So no, there are no "simple contradictions" destroying my law, only bullshit hypotheticals based on warm, fuzzy heartstring-tugging. Boo hoo, someone whose father may or may not be a US citizen wasn't able to prove it, and thus had to acquire citizenship through naturalization. Waaah, sob sob. Not interested.

And why NOT have government-required DNA tests?

Maybe because they are extremely intrusive? Maybe because I, as a US taxpayer, do not want to pay for them? Maybe because the constitution is clear as to who is a citizen or not?

So basically, your argument is that it's "too intrusive" to do something we already do for OTHER government services, and that you, as a taxpayer, would rather pay billions of dollars in costs incurred by the illegal immigrant invasion - spurred at least partly by the fact that, right now, you can acquire citizenship for your child merely by sneaking in and squirting him out in the US - than pay the costs of paternity tests to ascertain whether or not someone is entitled to citizenship by virtue of having a father who is a US citizen? Oh, and of course, the brilliant argument that is "This is what the law SHOULD be, because this is what the law ALREADY IS"?

Do I even need to rebut this mass of bullshit, or does my tone of utter disdain cover it?

Seems pretty simple to ME, albeit probably time-consuming.

It's not simple because people are naturally going to find loopholes, like the ones I pointed out. You will then be forced to reject citizens under your law because of the convoluted nature of it...

Well, gloryosky. Let's not pass ANY law that people might try to find loopholes for (never mind that you have yet to point out one single valid loophole). There's nothing "convoluted" here, other than your inane attempts to reject any possibility of not allowing people to flood across our borders, drop babies, and then hang around to cost us a fortune.

 

[Flopper]

How about being born to a mother or father who is a US citizen?

What makes them a US Citizen? It always comes back to being born in the US border every time.

Nope. It doesn't. If you track anyone's family lineage back far enough, you will find the original immigrants in their family (this is, of course, theoretical, since the records aren't available to literally track everyone's family back that far). At that point, you can ascertain whether or not they came to this country legally, thereby becoming legal citizens and conveying legal citizenship on their offspring.

Now obviously, we aren't going to sit down and backtrack everyone's family history. I'm just pointing out that US citizenship is NOT merely a matter of being born here even to those of us who were. I am a US citizen because, at some point in time, my ancestors came here by legally accepted means and became US citizens by legally accepted means, and all of the generations of my family thereafter were then born on US soil to US citizens. All anyone is asking is that that be the case for everyone else claiming US citizenship by birth.

Well let's forget about checking the citizenship of the kids ancestors. How do you propose the citizenship of the parents be checked? A birth certificate isn't going to do it since being born in the US does not mean they are citizens.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Was your daughter born in the United States?

Pointless question.....people who come into the country ILLEGALLY should have NO LEGAL RIGHTS to citizenship of their offspring...PERIOD! and the law should reflect that!

I'll take that as a "NO" therefore your situation has NOTHING to do with anchor babies. Please bring relevant real life situations to the debate.

It was completely relevant. You just want to pretend that it wasn't, because you don't want to deal with it.

Let me spell it out for you, tweeko: the US government ALREADY uses government-ordered paternity tests in order to establish entitlement to citizenship for children who are born outside the US and have only one parent who is a US citizen. Therefore, there is a strong and viable precedent for ALSO using paternity tests to establish entitlement to citizenship after "anchor babies" are abolished.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You won't you get a clear answer. If birth in the US does not make you a citizen then hundreds of millions of Americans will have no proof of citizenship since their birth certificate could not be used as proof.

First of all the Supreme Court would have to reinterpret the 14th amendment to exclude birth as grounds for citizenship. Congress would have to redefine the requirements for citizenship. Then there would have to be some kind of national id card indicating citizenship.

Don't worry. This isn't going to happen.

No, the first thing would be that we would have to pass a new amendment to the constitution negating Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

And just what would that new amendment say?

So now you need us to sit down and craft the exact wording of the amendment for you before you'll discuss it in a message board debate?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What makes them a US Citizen? It always comes back to being born in the US border every time.

Nope. It doesn't. If you track anyone's family lineage back far enough, you will find the original immigrants in their family (this is, of course, theoretical, since the records aren't available to literally track everyone's family back that far). At that point, you can ascertain whether or not they came to this country legally, thereby becoming legal citizens and conveying legal citizenship on their offspring.

Now obviously, we aren't going to sit down and backtrack everyone's family history. I'm just pointing out that US citizenship is NOT merely a matter of being born here even to those of us who were. I am a US citizen because, at some point in time, my ancestors came here by legally accepted means and became US citizens by legally accepted means, and all of the generations of my family thereafter were then born on US soil to US citizens. All anyone is asking is that that be the case for everyone else claiming US citizenship by birth.

Well let's forget about checking the citizenship of the kids ancestors. How do you propose the citizenship of the parents be checked? A birth certificate isn't going to do it since being born in the US does not mean they are citizens.

Oh, for God's sake, there you go again with your insane obsession with birth certificates.

Try and stay with me here, if you could just possibly shoo the words "birth certificate" out of your head for two seconds. Every legal citizen of the United States has a paper trail which allows them to prove that they are, in fact, citizens of the United States. If you really need to do it, it can be done. Even without you-know-whats.

 

[Cecilie1200]

While I'm thinking about it, I have something to say on the subject of "paternity tests are too intrusive". Too intrusive for whom, exactly? The father, who's running around making babies all over the place willy-nilly? I imagine it's ALSO intrusive for him to have a big chunk of his paycheck taken away every month for child support, as well (which also, strangely enough, involves government-ordered paternity tests. Hmmmm), and my heart doesn't exactly bleed for him about any of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You won't you get a clear answer. If birth in the US does not make you a citizen then hundreds of millions of Americans will have no proof of citizenship since their birth certificate could not be used as proof.

First of all the Supreme Court would have to reinterpret the 14th amendment to exclude birth as grounds for citizenship. Congress would have to redefine the requirements for citizenship. Then there would have to be some kind of national id card indicating citizenship.

Don't worry. This isn't going to happen.

No, the first thing would be that we would have to pass a new amendment to the constitution negating Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

And just what would that new amendment say?

Why should I care? Since you read my post you know I was simply pointing out that it is not simply a matter of SCOTUS reinterpiting the Constitution. Since you are attempting to make it appear I am advocating a position I do not have, you are a liar, and your opinion is unworthy of consideration.