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

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

He is just trolling, and distorted what I posted as badly as he di your post. We should just ignore him.

 

[gautama]

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...

ANYTHING seems "convoluted" to a person who does not comprehend REALITY....IOW, who is STUPID.

 

[Zoom-boing]

some are missing the issue here....it is about those who illegally enter this country and then give birth....

should the 'anchor baby' "clause" apply in that case?

No. How is this hard? Seems like a no brainer to me.

When these 'anchor babies' reach the age of 21, because they are citizens, they can then sponsor other family members for entry into the U.S., aka 'Chain Migration'.

More info here on the effect of illegals/anchor babies.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens

 

[Flopper]

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.

You can't take the birth certificate out of the discussion. For about 90% of Americans, the birth certificate is the document used to prove citizenship. In some states, the birth place of the parents doesn't even appear on the child's birth certificate. In states that do list the birth place of the parents, they are not required to submit evidence of their place of birth. In other words, everyones birth certificate would be worthless as a proof of citizenship.

The whole idea of striking section one of the 14th amendment is a bit ridiculous. It is the basis for the Supreme Court ruling that struck down segregation as well as other rulings. A new amendment to replace section one? That would require a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress plus ratification by the state legislatures. It would also require new laws in most of the states related to birth certificates and proof of citizenship. You are more likely to see UFOs on the lawn of the white house than any of this.

 

[2Parties]

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.

Proof that has nothing to do with me. You want to put a government gun in my face and kick me out of my grandmothers house because my mother was raped by a US citizen but can't prove it.

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?

Uh no. I'm not one of those rabid tea partiers who support social security, medicare, medicaid, government education, or welfare. Feel free to group me with them though.

Oh, and of course, the brilliant argument that is "This is what the law SHOULD be, because this is what the law ALREADY IS"?

I'm against government borders, so what I support really has zilch to do with that argument. Good luck overturning the US constitution though...

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.

I'm all for peaceful people who want to work, and for employers who want to pay people a wage they will work for. The more people on this planet willing to work and improve themselves and their families the better off we all be. Government borders only destroy the free market mechanism which lowers the cost of goods and services to everyone, and increases their supply to more people.

But hey, I guess the supposed free-marketer wall builder anti-anchor-baby people live by one slogan. Freedom, When Convenient.

 

[Cecilie1200]

some are missing the issue here....it is about those who illegally enter this country and then give birth....

should the 'anchor baby' "clause" apply in that case?

No. How is this hard? Seems like a no brainer to me.

When these 'anchor babies' reach the age of 21, because they are citizens, they can then sponsor other family members for entry into the U.S., aka 'Chain Migration'.

More info here on the effect of illegals/anchor babies.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens

Not to mention the fact that those families aren't just picking up and going back home after Mom squirts the anchor baby out, and as a US citizen, HE is eligible to get his family any government goodies that they might putatively be denied otherwise.

 

[2Parties]

Not to mention the fact that those families aren't just picking up and going back home after Mom squirts the anchor baby out, and as a US citizen, HE is eligible to get his family any government goodies that they might putatively be denied otherwise.

Oh, and of course, the brilliant argument that is "This is what the law SHOULD be, because this is what the law ALREADY IS"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You can't take the birth certificate out of the discussion. For about 90% of Americans, the birth certificate is the document used to prove citizenship. In some states, the birth place of the parents doesn't even appear on the child's birth certificate. In states that do list the birth place of the parents, they are not required to submit evidence of their place of birth. In other words, everyones birth certificate would be worthless as a proof of citizenship.

You've just managed to prove to yourself why the birth certificate is ALREADY not accepted by itself as proof of anything, despite your naive belief that 90% of Americans have nothing else to work with. Where are you even getting that statistic? From the smell, I'd say out of your ass.

The whole idea of striking section one of the 14th amendment is a bit ridiculous. It is the basis for the Supreme Court ruling that struck down segregation as well as other rulings. A new amendment to replace section one? That would require a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress plus ratification by the state legislatures. It would also require new laws in most of the states related to birth certificates and proof of citizenship. You are more likely to see UFOs on the lawn of the white house than any of this.

First of all, I don't think anyone's talking about "striking down" any of the Fourteenth Amendment, so much as clarifying it to reflect the changing situation in our country, which is what the purpose of the Amendment process IS. In fact, the 14th Amendment itself was an attempt to clarify the Constitution to reflect the changing situation in the country in 1896.

Second of all, the vision of the 14th Amendment as this impenetrable bulwark which forced the end of segregation is sort of funny, given that it was ratified in 1896 and the Supreme Court and lesser courts promptly began handing down decisions for almost a hundred years to the effect that the 14th didn't really mean much of anything. The basis of the Supreme Court ruling against segregation - Brown v Board of Education, in case you didn't know - was much the same as the basis for any Supreme Court ruling: the Supreme Court decided it wanted to rule that way.

I'm rather confused on why you think the Amendment process is so unlikely to happen, given that it has happened 27 other times, if I remember correctly, and for matters a lot less intense than this.

 

[USArmyRetired]

What's the difference between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Proof that has nothing to do with me. You want to put a government gun in my face and kick me out of my grandmothers house because my mother was raped by a US citizen but can't prove it.

What the **** are you babbling about?

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?

Uh no. I'm not one of those rabid tea partiers who support social security, medicare, medicaid, government education, or welfare. Feel free to group me with them though.

Same question. What the **** are you babbling about?

Oh, and of course, the brilliant argument that is "This is what the law SHOULD be, because this is what the law ALREADY IS"?

I'm against government borders, so what I support really has zilch to do with that argument. Good luck overturning the US constitution though...

Aside from the fact that I didn't ask you that, are you planning on addressing what I DID say? And in regards to "overturning the US Constitution", I guess we're back to my same question: What the **** are you babbling about?

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.

I'm all for peaceful people who want to work, and for employers who want to pay people a wage they will work for. The more people on this planet willing to work and improve themselves and their families the better off we all be. Government borders only destroy the free market mechanism which lowers the cost of goods and services to everyone, and increases their supply to more people.

And now we're traveling through Tangent Land, where we discuss things that have ****-all to do with the topic at hand.

I can assure you that the one thing that WON'T be happening is the people of the United States - or any other industrialized nation, for that matter - committing personal economic suicide by abolishing the concept of individual nations and joining a one-world government so that everything they've worked for centuries to accomplish can be washed away under tides of people who didn't work to accomplish it, but want to help themselves anyway. So perhaps we could stick to the realm of actual possibility? Hmmm?

But hey, I guess the supposed free-marketer wall builder anti-anchor-baby people live by one slogan. Freedom, When Convenient.

Actually, dear, it's more like "Freedom isn't free". Nor does it include the freedom to harm others in your own selfish pursuits.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not to mention the fact that those families aren't just picking up and going back home after Mom squirts the anchor baby out, and as a US citizen, HE is eligible to get his family any government goodies that they might putatively be denied otherwise.

Oh, and of course, the brilliant argument that is "This is what the law SHOULD be, because this is what the law ALREADY IS"?

And once again, your nonsensical post begs the question: What the **** are you babbling about?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What's the difference between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen?

Specificity.

A US citizen is . . . well, anyone who is a citizen of the United States. A natural-born citizen is someone who is a citizen because he is born into it, as opposed to someone who was not born a citizen, but became one through the naturalization process.

 

[Flopper]

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.

You can't take the birth certificate out of the discussion. For about 90% of Americans, the birth certificate is the document used to prove citizenship. In some states, the birth place of the parents doesn't even appear on the child's birth certificate. In states that do list the birth place of the parents, they are not required to submit evidence of their place of birth. In other words, everyones birth certificate would be worthless as a proof of citizenship.

You've just managed to prove to yourself why the birth certificate is ALREADY not accepted by itself as proof of anything, despite your naive belief that 90% of Americans have nothing else to work with. Where are you even getting that statistic? From the smell, I'd say out of your ass.

The whole idea of striking section one of the 14th amendment is a bit ridiculous. It is the basis for the Supreme Court ruling that struck down segregation as well as other rulings. A new amendment to replace section one? That would require a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress plus ratification by the state legislatures. It would also require new laws in most of the states related to birth certificates and proof of citizenship. You are more likely to see UFOs on the lawn of the white house than any of this.

First of all, I don't think anyone's talking about "striking down" any of the Fourteenth Amendment, so much as clarifying it to reflect the changing situation in our country, which is what the purpose of the Amendment process IS. In fact, the 14th Amendment itself was an attempt to clarify the Constitution to reflect the changing situation in the country in 1896.

Second of all, the vision of the 14th Amendment as this impenetrable bulwark which forced the end of segregation is sort of funny, given that it was ratified in 1896 and the Supreme Court and lesser courts promptly began handing down decisions for almost a hundred years to the effect that the 14th didn't really mean much of anything. The basis of the Supreme Court ruling against segregation - Brown v Board of Education, in case you didn't know - was much the same as the basis for any Supreme Court ruling: the Supreme Court decided it wanted to rule that way.

I'm rather confused on why you think the Amendment process is so unlikely to happen, given that it has happened 27 other times, if I remember correctly, and for matters a lot less intense than this.

In order to clarify section 1, either the Supreme Court would have to do it or Congress would have to amend the Constitution. Neither seems likely to me.

Suppose the Supreme Court ruled that section one does not mean that a person is a citizen simply because they were born in the US due to the jurisdiction issue. That would leave the question open as to what are the qualifications for citizenship of a child born in the US. If one parent is an illegal alien and the other is legal. Is the child a citizen? If an adult’s parents were illegal, then he would be illegal. Are his kids also illegal and grandkids? Creating law is not the job of the courts. Congress would have to create law that defines what makes a newborn a citizen, most probably through a constitutional amendment.

Why do I think an amendment to the constitution is unlikely? Upward of 200 amendments to the constitution are proposed each year. In the history of the country, congress approved only 33 and the states ratified only 27. The Republicans would have to control 2/3 of both houses and the presidency. There is no way Democrats would support this.

I don’t think changing the constitution is the best way to handle this. We are going to have to control the boarders a lot better. The major reason that Mexicans come across the border is to find work. We need to eliminate this incentive. By reducing the number entering the country we will eventually reduce the number born here. Either by law or otherwise, we will assimilate the children and grandchildren of millions of illegal immigrants. Who knows, in fifty years we may have a president with birthers claiming he is not a citizen because his great grandfather came to this country illegally.

List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Flopper]

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.

You can't take the birth certificate out of the discussion. For about 90% of Americans, the birth certificate is the document used to prove citizenship. In some states, the birth place of the parents doesn't even appear on the child's birth certificate. In states that do list the birth place of the parents, they are not required to submit evidence of their place of birth. In other words, everyones birth certificate would be worthless as a proof of citizenship.

You've just managed to prove to yourself why the birth certificate is ALREADY not accepted by itself as proof of anything, despite your naive belief that 90% of Americans have nothing else to work with. Where are you even getting that statistic? From the smell, I'd say out of your ass.

The whole idea of striking section one of the 14th amendment is a bit ridiculous. It is the basis for the Supreme Court ruling that struck down segregation as well as other rulings. A new amendment to replace section one? That would require a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress plus ratification by the state legislatures. It would also require new laws in most of the states related to birth certificates and proof of citizenship. You are more likely to see UFOs on the lawn of the white house than any of this.

First of all, I don't think anyone's talking about "striking down" any of the Fourteenth Amendment, so much as clarifying it to reflect the changing situation in our country, which is what the purpose of the Amendment process IS. In fact, the 14th Amendment itself was an attempt to clarify the Constitution to reflect the changing situation in the country in 1896.

Second of all, the vision of the 14th Amendment as this impenetrable bulwark which forced the end of segregation is sort of funny, given that it was ratified in 1896 and the Supreme Court and lesser courts promptly began handing down decisions for almost a hundred years to the effect that the 14th didn't really mean much of anything. The basis of the Supreme Court ruling against segregation - Brown v Board of Education, in case you didn't know - was much the same as the basis for any Supreme Court ruling: the Supreme Court decided it wanted to rule that way.

I'm rather confused on why you think the Amendment process is so unlikely to happen, given that it has happened 27 other times, if I remember correctly, and for matters a lot less intense than this.

You've just managed to prove to yourself why the birth certificate is ALREADY not accepted by itself as proof of anything, despite your naive belief that 90% of Americans have nothing else to work with. Where are you even getting that statistic? From the smell, I'd say out of your ass.

Nope: The government accepts the birth certificate as proof of citizenship. If you were born in the US all the proof you need is a birth certificated to get a passport.
Passport Requirements for United States Passports

For most Americans the birth certificate is the common method of proving citizenship. Naturalization papers can also be used. If you have neither it still can be done, but it's much more difficult.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can't take the birth certificate out of the discussion. For about 90% of Americans, the birth certificate is the document used to prove citizenship. In some states, the birth place of the parents doesn't even appear on the child's birth certificate. In states that do list the birth place of the parents, they are not required to submit evidence of their place of birth. In other words, everyones birth certificate would be worthless as a proof of citizenship.

You've just managed to prove to yourself why the birth certificate is ALREADY not accepted by itself as proof of anything, despite your naive belief that 90% of Americans have nothing else to work with. Where are you even getting that statistic? From the smell, I'd say out of your ass.

The whole idea of striking section one of the 14th amendment is a bit ridiculous. It is the basis for the Supreme Court ruling that struck down segregation as well as other rulings. A new amendment to replace section one? That would require a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress plus ratification by the state legislatures. It would also require new laws in most of the states related to birth certificates and proof of citizenship. You are more likely to see UFOs on the lawn of the white house than any of this.

First of all, I don't think anyone's talking about "striking down" any of the Fourteenth Amendment, so much as clarifying it to reflect the changing situation in our country, which is what the purpose of the Amendment process IS. In fact, the 14th Amendment itself was an attempt to clarify the Constitution to reflect the changing situation in the country in 1896.

Second of all, the vision of the 14th Amendment as this impenetrable bulwark which forced the end of segregation is sort of funny, given that it was ratified in 1896 and the Supreme Court and lesser courts promptly began handing down decisions for almost a hundred years to the effect that the 14th didn't really mean much of anything. The basis of the Supreme Court ruling against segregation - Brown v Board of Education, in case you didn't know - was much the same as the basis for any Supreme Court ruling: the Supreme Court decided it wanted to rule that way.

I'm rather confused on why you think the Amendment process is so unlikely to happen, given that it has happened 27 other times, if I remember correctly, and for matters a lot less intense than this.

In order to clarify section 1, either the Supreme Court would have to do it or Congress would have to amend the Constitution. Neither seems likely to me.

Excuse me? "The Supreme Court would have to do it"? Are you telling me you actually believe the Supreme Court has the legal power to Amend the Constitution?

Suppose the Supreme Court ruled that section one does not mean that a person is a citizen simply because they were born in the US due to the jurisdiction issue. That would leave the question open as to what are the qualifications for citizenship of a child born in the US. If one parent is an illegal alien and the other is legal. Is the child a citizen? If an adult’s parents were illegal, then he would be illegal. Are his kids also illegal and grandkids? Creating law is not the job of the courts. Congress would have to create law that defines what makes a newborn a citizen, most probably through a constitutional amendment.

Why do I think an amendment to the constitution is unlikely? Upward of 200 amendments to the constitution are proposed each year. In the history of the country, congress approved only 33 and the states ratified only 27. The Republicans would have to control 2/3 of both houses and the presidency. There is no way Democrats would support this.

I don’t think changing the constitution is the best way to handle this. We are going to have to control the boarders a lot better. The major reason that Mexicans come across the border is to find work. We need to eliminate this incentive. By reducing the number entering the country we will eventually reduce the number born here. Either by law or otherwise, we will assimilate the children and grandchildren of millions of illegal immigrants. Who knows, in fifty years we may have a president with birthers claiming he is not a citizen because his great grandfather came to this country illegally.

List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Babble, babble, blather, blather. You have no idea how things work in this country, how they SHOULD work, and you're wasting my time with convoluted hypotheticals that you THINK are unsolvably complicated, simply because you mistakenly believe that everyone else in the world thinks with their emotions instead of their brains. "Oh, gosh, those poor people. It would be HARD on them. That means it can't be done."

Sit down. Shut your piehole. Grow up. THEN talk.

 

[Flopper]

You've just managed to prove to yourself why the birth certificate is ALREADY not accepted by itself as proof of anything, despite your naive belief that 90% of Americans have nothing else to work with. Where are you even getting that statistic? From the smell, I'd say out of your ass.



First of all, I don't think anyone's talking about "striking down" any of the Fourteenth Amendment, so much as clarifying it to reflect the changing situation in our country, which is what the purpose of the Amendment process IS. In fact, the 14th Amendment itself was an attempt to clarify the Constitution to reflect the changing situation in the country in 1896.

Second of all, the vision of the 14th Amendment as this impenetrable bulwark which forced the end of segregation is sort of funny, given that it was ratified in 1896 and the Supreme Court and lesser courts promptly began handing down decisions for almost a hundred years to the effect that the 14th didn't really mean much of anything. The basis of the Supreme Court ruling against segregation - Brown v Board of Education, in case you didn't know - was much the same as the basis for any Supreme Court ruling: the Supreme Court decided it wanted to rule that way.

I'm rather confused on why you think the Amendment process is so unlikely to happen, given that it has happened 27 other times, if I remember correctly, and for matters a lot less intense than this.

In order to clarify section 1, either the Supreme Court would have to do it or Congress would have to amend the Constitution. Neither seems likely to me.

Excuse me? "The Supreme Court would have to do it"? Are you telling me you actually believe the Supreme Court has the legal power to Amend the Constitution?

Suppose the Supreme Court ruled that section one does not mean that a person is a citizen simply because they were born in the US due to the jurisdiction issue. That would leave the question open as to what are the qualifications for citizenship of a child born in the US. If one parent is an illegal alien and the other is legal. Is the child a citizen? If an adult’s parents were illegal, then he would be illegal. Are his kids also illegal and grandkids? Creating law is not the job of the courts. Congress would have to create law that defines what makes a newborn a citizen, most probably through a constitutional amendment.

Why do I think an amendment to the constitution is unlikely? Upward of 200 amendments to the constitution are proposed each year. In the history of the country, congress approved only 33 and the states ratified only 27. The Republicans would have to control 2/3 of both houses and the presidency. There is no way Democrats would support this.

I don’t think changing the constitution is the best way to handle this. We are going to have to control the boarders a lot better. The major reason that Mexicans come across the border is to find work. We need to eliminate this incentive. By reducing the number entering the country we will eventually reduce the number born here. Either by law or otherwise, we will assimilate the children and grandchildren of millions of illegal immigrants. Who knows, in fifty years we may have a president with birthers claiming he is not a citizen because his great grandfather came to this country illegally.

List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Babble, babble, blather, blather. You have no idea how things work in this country, how they SHOULD work, and you're wasting my time with convoluted hypotheticals that you THINK are unsolvably complicated, simply because you mistakenly believe that everyone else in the world thinks with their emotions instead of their brains. "Oh, gosh, those poor people. It would be HARD on them. That means it can't be done."

Sit down. Shut your piehole. Grow up. THEN talk.

I think you miss my point entirely. I have little concern for those that violate our laws and live in this country illegally. I understand why people want to see all of them sent back to where they came from, but it’s not going to happen for many reasons. Stopping the flow into the country, deporting the criminals, and gradually assimilating the remainder is doable and will solve the problem. The path to citizenship in the immigration reform bill is seriously flawed but is a step in right direction.

 

[bodecea]

I've never received a clear answer from those who clamor for abolishing anchor baby citizenship.

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

Fathers...so blood/dna tests on all babies?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've never received a clear answer from those who clamor for abolishing anchor baby citizenship.

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

Fathers...so blood/dna tests on all babies?

Nope. Just those who are in dispute.