• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Citizenship vs. Constitution

In regard to children of illegal aliens being citizens......


  • Total voters
    70

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So it seems Americans have transitioned from being racists to nationalists. Not surprising at all. I'll bet you 10 bucks that 50 years from now, our descendants will bash us for being despicable nationalists.

As an American, I believe in freedom, justice and liberty for all. Changing the constitution because you don't like Mexicans is as racist as it gets. If you want less illegal immigrants then make the immigration process easier. It is that simple. I'm sure that if the "illegal immigrants" were blue eyed and blond haired, Americans would be much more accomodating.
"You want less crime? Repeal the criminal laws."
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
"You want less crime? Repeal the criminal laws."
True story. This is what should be done about drugs and prostitution, too. I hope we really are smart enough to learn from out past mistakes.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
True story. This is what should be done about drugs and prostitution, too. I hope we really are smart enough to learn from out past mistakes.
Sure. Cut down theft by making thievery legal. Cut down on murder by making IT legal.
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The main problem with illegal immigrants is that they're illegal not that they're immigrants. Make the laws easier to follow, and they will be able to be more functioning members of society.

BTW I'm not calling for open borders, amnesty, or not stepping up enforcement of our laws, just giving those who aren't highly skilled workers and people or have relatives here to get in. I'm sick of addressing this.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Sure. Cut down theft by making thievery legal. Cut down on murder by making IT legal.
You realize that those are crimes with victims who were wronged by the actions of another. The ones I mentioned and illegal immigration are not. Try picking examples that are relevant.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You realize that those are crimes with victims who were wronged by the actions of another. The ones I mentioned and illegal immigration are not. Try picking examples that are relevant.
Considering you were responding to my original statement, I don't think it's you who gets to determine what's "relevant" regarding same.
 

Animus

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
128
Reaction score
37
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Your argument is illogical. "Make the process easier, or we'll continue pouring in." I'm sorry but that's not how it works. It's OUR country, not theirs. They have no rights as citizens until they become citizens. Whatever the process is, is what they'll have to live with. Foreigners have no entitlement to becoming a citizen. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere.
Typical right wing gibberish that has no value. What is the advantage in keeping out legal immigrants? Pray tell.

Oppression is not the solution and obviously it isn't working. When you're starving someone, they will steal. When the immigration process is unnecessarily difficult, unfair and costly, people will come here illegally.
 
Last edited:

Technocrat

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
113
Reaction score
31
Location
Dail -up Hell
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I understand not giving birthright citizenship to diplomats' kids which is already the case, but denying it to anyone else troubles me. The first problem is bureaucratic. People wouldn't be able to prove their citizenship with a simple birth certificate, and this will make getting anything from a passport to a marriage license more difficult, and probably more expensive.
Really? First off, the fourteenth did not apply to a very large number of people. Native Americans were not covered until federal law regarding them was changed in the 1930's. Citizenship was not automatically applied to the children of illegals until about 1898, when SCOTUS said we could not deprive them of citizenship because the Congress had not passed a law defining that illegals were not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the United States. (See: United States vs Wong Kim Ark (1898))A law that classified illegal aliens, and visiting aliens as not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for the purpose of citizenship is all that would be required. The bureaucratic argument is a non-issue. A stipulation in the law requiring birth certificates after the date of implementation to have a citizen/non-citizen block in order to be valid proof of citizenship would solve that problem completely, since such a law could probably not be made retroactive.

The second is that it would trouble me if the government could deny citizenship to people born here. It opens the door to abuse and denying people their rights
How? IF the little darlings do not get their citizenship, it will be the fault of their parents who chose to break our laws, & no one else.

Thirdly, the child committed no crime. It was their parents that broke the law. We don't send children to prison if their parent kills a person. The kid is a bystander.
Children suffer for their parents bad desisions all the time. Is it fair? No, but then the world is not fair. By your logic we should not send anyone to prison because it punishes their children (which, by the way, it does).

Fourthly, it won't really cut illegal immigration that much. The laws right now aren't simply, have a kid here, and you're a citizen. It still involves a long process. By far the biggest draw to America is jobs.
Actually, the number of pregnant women crossing the border says otherwise. Once one of these "Anchor" babies is born, the illegal parents can draw benefits based on their little citizen. Thanks to a few activist judges the welfare office is not allowed to report these people to ICE.

There is also a multi-million dollar "Maturity" tourism industry for pregnant Asian women who can afford it, so that they can get her, deliver their kid. and get a fresh new US birthright citizenship the baby, complete with a US passport to get the kid home.
See: Korean moms want 'born in USA' babies
 

Technocrat

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
113
Reaction score
31
Location
Dail -up Hell
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So it seems Americans have transitioned from being racists to nationalists. Not surprising at all. I'll bet you 10 bucks that 50 years from now, our descendants will bash us for being despicable nationalists.
Only to the left, who already hate everyone who disagrees with them. You disagree with the Democratic/Socialist party line & you are automatically labeled a racist or worse.

As an American, I believe in freedom, justice and liberty for all. Changing the constitution because you don't like Mexicans is as racist as it gets.
'Fraid not.
First, it is not because they are Mexican, it is because they are illegal.
Second if they do not respect immigration law, or fraud statutes (like using bogus Social Security cards) how can any reasonable person think these individuals will respect any of our other laws?

If you want less illegal immigrants then make the immigration process easier. It is that simple.
No, it is not. We cannot just open the doors to anyone who wants to come. 100 years ago we needed laborers. Today we have 17% of our population either un or under employed. We cannot afford the welfare costs we have now. We defiantly cannot afford to let a lot more welfare recipients into the country, which would happen if legal immigration was easier.

I'm sure that if the "illegal immigrants" were blue eyed and blond haired, Americans would be much more accomodating.
I don't know about that. The resistance to Irish immigrants a hundred years ago kind of puts the lie to that.
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Really? First off, the fourteenth did not apply to a very large number of people. Native Americans were not covered until federal law regarding them was changed in the 1930's.
Native Americans were considered part of "distinct alien nations." The government officially dealt with tribes with treaties. Before you go further with this, I'd like to remind you that this is nineteenth century America's treatment of Native Americans we're talking about here, I wouldn't hold that up as the best precedent. The Supreme Court has made clear that the 14th applies to all US citizens


Citizenship was not automatically applied to the children of illegals until about 1898, when SCOTUS said we could not deprive them of citizenship because the Congress had not passed a law defining that illegals were not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the United States. (See: United States vs Wong Kim Ark (1898))A law that classified illegal aliens, and visiting aliens as not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for the purpose of citizenship is all that would be required.
So the government had an unconstitutional policy until 1898. Our government does it all the time. That isn't evidence that the 14th doesn't give birthright citizenship.

Wong Kim Ark didn't apply to the children of three groups of people: Native Americans - see above, Children of diplomats - are are not under the jurisdiction of US Law, and invading armies as they are governed by by their commanders and not the US government. Illegals are subject to and can be arrested for breaking our laws, they are within our jurisdiction.

How? IF the little darlings do not get their citizenship, it will be the fault of their parents who chose to break our laws, & no one else.


Children suffer for their parents bad desisions all the time. Is it fair? No, but then the world is not fair. By your logic we should not send anyone to prison because it punishes their children (which, by the way, it does).
Denying them birthright citizenship is like sending the the kid to prison for what their parent did. The kid had nothing to do with it.

Actually, the number of pregnant women crossing the border says otherwise. Once one of these "Anchor" babies is born, the illegal parents can draw benefits based on their little citizen. Thanks to a few activist judges the welfare office is not allowed to report these people to ICE.

There is also a multi-million dollar "Maturity" tourism industry for pregnant Asian women who can afford it, so that they can get her, deliver their kid. and get a fresh new US birthright citizenship the baby, complete with a US passport to get the kid home.
See: Korean moms want 'born in USA' babies
Any statistics on how many people are doing this, exactly?
 
Last edited:

Technocrat

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
113
Reaction score
31
Location
Dail -up Hell
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Native Americans were considered part of "distinct alien nations." The government officially dealt with tribes with treaties. Before you go further with this, I'd like to remind you that this is nineteenth century America's treatment of Native Americans we're talking about here, I wouldn't hold that up as the best precedent. The Supreme Court has made clear that the 14th applies to all US citizens
Actually they did not.
Kim Wong Ark was given his citizenship only because there were no federal statutes saying that illegals are not under US jurisdiction for the purpose of determining citizenship. Until such legislation is passed, the children of illegals will continue to be granted citizenship they do not deserve.

So the government had an unconstitutional policy until 1898. Our government does it all the time. That isn't evidence that the 14th doesn't give birthright citizenship.
Not unconstitutional, just not defined by statute. And this ruling did not say all children of illegals had a right to be citizens until the end of The Republic. The decision merely said the Federal government had to have a statute defining their status, not just a policy that could be changed on the whim of an administration. As yet, neither party has been willing to provide such a statute.

Wong Kim Ark didn't apply to the children of three groups of people: Native Americans - see above, Children of diplomats - are are not under the jurisdiction of US Law, and invading armies as they are governed by by their commanders and not the US government. Illegals are subject to and can be arrested for breaking our laws, they are within our jurisdiction.
As can soldiers of invading armies. If they are out of uniform they can even be hung as spies under US law. Native Americans could also be tried for violation of US & state laws, even if the violation occurred on native lands.
Diplomats are the only category of people to have immunity from the laws of their host countries, a sad state of affairs we have to live with to keep our diplomats safe in foreign counties.

If 12 million people forcing their way across our border with the assistance of their government does not constitute an invasion by a foreign army darn little will. And that is only the Mexicans.
Add to that the Chinese that are smuggled in each year, the OTM's (Other Than Mexican) that cross the southern border mixed in with the Mexicans, and all the others who come on a tourist or student visa & just refuse to go home and you end up with a whole lot of people who are more than happy to break our laws living in our country without permission or any right to be here.

Unless you would rather treat them as spies? Personally I would not, but that is an option since their presence has proven detrimental to our nation.
Either way they are still foreign nationals, and are still under the jurisdiction of their native governments. They stay under the jurisdiction of their native government until they became a legal permanent resident.

Denying them birthright citizenship is like sending the the kid to prison for what their parent did. The kid had nothing to do with it.
No, it is not.
True, the children did not choose their place of birth. Their parents did chose to have them be born here in violation of US law. Should these children be given head of the line privileges ahead of people who's parents obeyed the law just because their parents chose to be criminals? I think not.

Creating anchor babies was never the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment and you know it. The amendment was intended to ensure that former slaves would not be deprived of their rights, as was the intent of all the Reconstruction Amendments.

Any statistics on how many people are doing this, exactly?
I'll see what I can find. Do you want all anchor babies or just the tourist issue?
 
Last edited:

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I'm curious. Other than a sense of moral outrage that "illegals shouldn't benefit from breaking the law", what reasons are there for preventing them from having an easier time becoming legal. That is, after all, their actual goal. They want to occupy a legal, non-citizen status in America. That's where they can find work. They'll do the jobs we don't want to do, and because they are not citizens, they won't be paid minimum wage. Therefore, businesses that need extremely cheap labor can have that labor, and people who want to move here can. Economically, it is of great benefit to have these people here. They do not "take our jobs." Unless you actually want to pick oranges off of trees for 2 dollars an hour.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm curious. Other than a sense of moral outrage that "illegals shouldn't benefit from breaking the law", what reasons are there for preventing them from having an easier time becoming legal.
Allowing someone to benefit from breaking our laws are by its self enough for me.... but in these economic times American citizens would benefit from the expulsion of all Illegal Aliens.

That is, after all, their actual goal. They want to occupy a legal, non-citizen status in America. That's where they can find work. They'll do the jobs we don't want to do, and because they are not citizens, they won't be paid minimum wage.
Then let them stand in line with all of the other Law abiding Aliens and apply to come here under our laws, not around them.

Therefore, businesses that need extremely cheap labor can have that labor, and people who want to move here can. Economically, it is of great benefit to have these people here. They do not "take our jobs." Unless you actually want to pick oranges off of trees for 2 dollars an hour.
So you are all for exploiting these people?..... have you ever heard of "minimum wage laws"? How about "employer contributions to Social Security"?

Why don't you look at the facts instead of being all touchy feely about the issue?
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Allowing someone to benefit from breaking our laws are by its self enough for me.... but in these economic times American citizens would benefit from the expulsion of all Illegal Aliens.

Then let them stand in line with all of the other Law abiding Aliens and apply to come here under our laws, not around them.

So you are all for exploiting these people?..... have you ever heard of "minimum wage laws"? How about "employer contributions to Social Security"?

Why don't you look at the facts instead of being all touchy feely about the issue?
Did you seriously not read my post? I addressed minimum wage laws. They only apply to citizens. Of course, no one usually applies for a work visa to get a minimum wage job. But these people would. They would want a legal way to work for minimum wage or often less. Why not have a tiered system for guest workers, and have one way be much easier to pass, and doesn't place you within minimum wage? It's win/win. So why the outrage?
 

Technocrat

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
113
Reaction score
31
Location
Dail -up Hell
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Did you seriously not read my post? I addressed minimum wage laws. They only apply to citizens.
Sorry, but that is not correct. Minimum wage laws apply to everyone. By working under the table for less than minimum wage, illegals help US citizens violate labor laws.

Of course, no one usually applies for a work visa to get a minimum wage job. But these people would. They would want a legal way to work for minimum wage or often less. Why not have a tiered system for guest workers, and have one way be much easier to pass, and doesn't place you within minimum wage? It's win/win. So why the outrage?
Other than the minimum wage issue, I could go along with something like that, if and only if the request for such a visa must be made before the applicant enters the country and the policy not start until the borders are secured & the current illegal population sent home.
As to the minimum wage thing, allowing foreigners to work for less than Americans is not win/win. The moral arguments against exploitation aside, such a policy would drive down wages for everyone.

I'm curious. Other than a sense of moral outrage that "illegals shouldn't benefit from breaking the law", what reasons are there for preventing them from having an easier time becoming legal.
(snip)
Like Crunch, that alone is reason enough for me. One aim of our immigration law & policy for over 100 years has been to try & keep criminals from entering the country. That has proven to be a wise policy. Why change?
Illegals have already proven that they do not respect our immigration, labor, or fraud laws. What in the world convinces you that they will respect any of our other laws? The high violent crime rate among illegals, both against each other & legal residents should be an indication of what we can expect.
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Actually they did not.
Kim Wong Ark was given his citizenship only because there were no federal statutes saying that illegals are not under US jurisdiction for the purpose of determining citizenship. Until such legislation is passed, the children of illegals will continue to be granted citizenship they do not deserve.

Not unconstitutional, just not defined by statute. And this ruling did not say all children of illegals had a right to be citizens until the end of The Republic. The decision merely said the Federal government had to have a statute defining their status, not just a policy that could be changed on the whim of an administration. As yet, neither party has been willing to provide such a statute.
So illegals aren't under our jurisdiction? I guess that means that our laws do not apply to them.

As can soldiers of invading armies. If they are out of uniform they can even be hung as spies under US law.
The vast majority of soldiers are not allowed to be hung as spies. Even then Soldiers are part of a unit from their own country and are in control of the land they are in. I don't know how you could call foreign occupied soil within our government's jurisdiction.

Native Americans could also be tried for violation of US & state laws, even if the violation occurred on native lands.
Yet the Supreme Court ruled them as separate from the US. Again, using our treatment of Indians in the 19th Century doesn't make for very good precedent.

If 12 million people forcing their way across our border with the assistance of their government does not constitute an invasion by a foreign army darn little will. And that is only the Mexicans.
I don't know people actually organized under a single purpose actually taking part in an armed invasion...

Add to that the Chinese that are smuggled in each year, the OTM's (Other Than Mexican) that cross the southern border mixed in with the Mexicans, and all the others who come on a tourist or student visa & just refuse to go home and you end up with a whole lot of people who are more than happy to break our laws living in our country without permission or any right to be here.
See above, I agree that we need to step up enforcement of our immigration laws. I just don't see denying birthright citizenship as an effective means to do it.

Unless you would rather treat them as spies? Personally I would not, but that is an option since their presence has proven detrimental to our nation.
Either way they are still foreign nationals, and are still under the jurisdiction of their native governments. They stay under the jurisdiction of their native government until they became a legal permanent resident.
They are subject to our laws and within our jurisdiction. This ignores the fact that the kid is a separate entity from his parents and born into American jurisdiction

No, it is not.
True, the children did not choose their place of birth. Their parents did chose to have them be born here in violation of US law. Should these children be given head of the line privileges ahead of people who's parents obeyed the law just because their parents chose to be criminals? I think not.
Since when do Anchor Babies have to wait in line at all? How do they screw it up for people born in other countries.

Creating anchor babies was never the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment and you know it. The amendment was intended to ensure that former slaves would not be deprived of their rights, as was the intent of all the Reconstruction Amendments.
It doesn't matter, the kids are born into US jurisdiction. The whole point of the 14th is equality under the law. If you are born here, you deserve the same rights and privleges as anyone else.

I'll see what I can find. Do you want all anchor babies or just the tourist issue?
Both preferably.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So illegals aren't under our jurisdiction? I guess that means that our laws do not apply to them.
Of course they are. However just like every other amendment that is in our Constitution the 14th Amendment does not apply in ALL cases. There are always exceptions to every rule. Those exceptions can be determined at any time by our congress and even to some extent our courts.

The vast majority of soldiers are not allowed to be hung as spies. Even then Soldiers are part of a unit from their own country and are in control of the land they are in. I don't know how you could call foreign occupied soil within our government's jurisdiction.
I think you missed a part of what he said. He did say that IF they are out of uniform they could be hung as spies. Which is true.

Yet the Supreme Court ruled them as separate from the US. Again, using our treatment of Indians in the 19th Century doesn't make for very good precedent.
I'm not sure if you read that part wrong or if I'm just reading what you said here wrong....

I don't know people actually organized under a single purpose actually taking part in an armed invasion...
There are more types of invasion that just "armed" invasion. After visiting a few forums which were dedicated to "brown pride" as they called it I would have to call it an invasion also. From the ones I talked to many illegals and pro-illegals from those forums actually stated that they have a "right" to come here and live here. And that the land along Texas, California, New Mexico etc etc was actually theirs and that we stole it from them, so they were just reclaiming what was rightfully thiers. (much of that was almost verbateum)

See above, I agree that we need to step up enforcement of our immigration laws. I just don't see denying birthright citizenship as an effective means to do it.
As I already mentioned, there are always exceptions to the rules. Even the rules of the Constitution. In this case the reason that we should start denying anchor babies citizenship is because that is one of the reasons that illegals come here. To have their baby get all of the advantages that comes with being a US Citizen vs say a Mexican Citizen where there are not as many socialized programs.

On that note I don't really blame a parent for wanting better for thier child. But doing wrong in order to give that child a better life can and often does hurt the child in the long run.

Since when do Anchor Babies have to wait in line at all? How do they screw it up for people born in other countries.
First part in bold: That was kinda his point. Is it right that a child that was born here because thier parents came here illegally gets automatic citizenship but someone else that was doing the right thing and waiting to come here legally couldn't have thier child born here like they wanted because the process took too long?

As for your second question there...well while I do have an answer I am not sure if I have all my facts straight on it so I will let someone else that is better versed in it answer it.

It doesn't matter, the kids are born into US jurisdiction. The whole point of the 14th is equality under the law. If you are born here, you deserve the same rights and privleges as anyone else.
If that were the case then why don't I get a check from the government like the Indians do? I've got a little bit of Indian in me...granted it's a small amount but it is still there.

In anycase here is another problem with anchor babies. When the parents are deported they can be deported without their child. This of course causes an uproar about how the big bad government is so cruel that they seperate child from mother/father. Since the child is a US citizen the government has an interest in the childs well being. Since they cannot make sure that the child is being properly cared for if the parents are booted out they take the child away and put em in foster homes and boot the parents out of the country. This of course puts a strain on our system. While having the side effect of making the government seem like the bad guys...even though they were just doing their job by making sure that a citizen of theirs was well taken care of and that those that were here illegally were booted out as per the law.
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Of course they are. However just like every other amendment that is in our Constitution the 14th Amendment does not apply in ALL cases. There are always exceptions to every rule. Those exceptions can be determined at any time by our congress and even to some extent our courts.
And there is usually a good reason for these exceptions. What loophole in the Constitution permits dening birthright citizenship.

I think you missed a part of what he said. He did say that IF they are out of uniform they could be hung as spies. Which is true.
Customs of war are different than civilian law. They are still enemy combatants under the command of a foreign power.

I'm not sure if you read that part wrong or if I'm just reading what you said here wrong....
He's using our treatment of Native Americans at a time when we treated them horribly as legal precedent. I'm saying that doesn't make sense, because our treatment of them then was filled with violence, double-standards, and broken promises.

There are more types of invasion that just "armed" invasion. After visiting a few forums which were dedicated to "brown pride" as they called it I would have to call it an invasion also. From the ones I talked to many illegals and pro-illegals from those forums actually stated that they have a "right" to come here and live here. And that the land along Texas, California, New Mexico etc etc was actually theirs and that we stole it from them, so they were just reclaiming what was rightfully thiers. (much of that was almost verbateum)
Some people on the internet =/= all Illegals. Most come for jobs most don't care all that much about land-grabbing, or anchor babies for that matter.

As I already mentioned, there are always exceptions to the rules. Even the rules of the Constitution. In this case the reason that we should start denying anchor babies citizenship is because that is one of the reasons that illegals come here. To have their baby get all of the advantages that comes with being a US Citizen vs say a Mexican Citizen where there are not as many socialized programs.
You can state that the law needs to be changed, but you not liking it doesn't make it go away.

On that note I don't really blame a parent for wanting better for thier child. But doing wrong in order to give that child a better life can and often does hurt the child in the long run.
So does sending them back to Honduras

First part in bold: That was kinda his point. Is it right that a child that was born here because thier parents came here illegally gets automatic citizenship but someone else that was doing the right thing and waiting to come here legally couldn't have thier child born here like they wanted because the process took too long?
I support making the process simpler. I still don't see how an Anchor baby being born here screws over those waiting in line any more than a typical natural-born citizen.



If that were the case then why don't I get a check from the government like the Indians do? I've got a little bit of Indian in me...granted it's a small amount but it is still there.
That's a separate issue.

In anycase here is another problem with anchor babies. When the parents are deported they can be deported without their child. This of course causes an uproar about how the big bad government is so cruel that they seperate child from mother/father. Since the child is a US citizen the government has an interest in the childs well being. Since they cannot make sure that the child is being properly cared for if the parents are booted out they take the child away and put em in foster homes and boot the parents out of the country. This of course puts a strain on our system. While having the side effect of making the government seem like the bad guys...even though they were just doing their job by making sure that a citizen of theirs was well taken care of and that those that were here illegally were booted out as per the law.
Give the parents a choice, take the kid with them, put it in foster care, or wait in line (one with a simpler, cheaper, and fairer process of course).
 

Technocrat

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
113
Reaction score
31
Location
Dail -up Hell
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So illegals aren't under our jurisdiction? I guess that means that our laws do not apply to them.
Wrong definition. They would have to obey our laws whether they were here legally or illegally (unless of course they have diplomatic immunity). Being under their home countries jurisdiction means they have the right to petition their countries embassy or consulates for assistance in any number of areas. When they come under our jurisdiction they lose that privilege.

The vast majority of soldiers are not allowed to be hung as spies. Even then Soldiers are part of a unit from their own country and are in control of the land they are in. I don't know how you could call foreign occupied soil within our government's jurisdiction.
????
We were discussing foreign army's as apply to the Kim Wong ark decision. Under that narrow parameter it would mean they were on our soil in time of conflict. In these circumstances a member of said foreign army can be treated as a spy if he is out & about in anything but his uniform.

Yet the Supreme Court ruled them as separate from the US. Again, using our treatment of Indians in the 19th Century doesn't make for very good precedent.
Just a sad fact. Our ancestors poor judgment & bad actions then do not justify making the children of illegals citizens now. (My mixed heritage puts me on both sides of this issue...)

I don't know people actually organized under a single purpose actually taking part in an armed invasion...
There are those in La Raza who see it that way:

Aztlan Dream to Retake the Southwestern United States

I do not personally think they can pull it off, but the idea is out there.


See above, I agree that we need to step up enforcement of our immigration laws. I just don't see denying birthright citizenship as an effective means to do it.
But it is.
It is one tool of many that can make the idea of coming in illegally less attractive. When combined with things like mandatory use of e-verify, prosecution of employers who willfully hire illegals (a criminal act under current statutes) for whatever their individual reasons may be, ICE sweeps of job-sites where illegals are typically employed, finishing the border fence & increased border enforcement, ordering Internal revenue to investigate fraudulent & duplicated SS numbers & passing relevant info onto ICE, and any other good ideas that come along, the incentive for illegals to enter is reduced along with the security & law enforcement problems a large illegal presence causes.

They are subject to our laws and within our jurisdiction. This ignores the fact that the kid is a separate entity from his parents and born into American jurisdiction
Not so. They are the child of an illegal alien, & the status of the child is the same as the status of the parent under the intent of the amendment. The fact that neither political party has had the courage to codify this with statute is the only reason there is any ambiguity. It should also be a source of great shame to those responsible.

Since when do Anchor Babies have to wait in line at all? How do they screw it up for people born in other countries.
They don't, & that is the problem. The children of other parents from their countries will have to wait longer to get in because the number of anchor babies born is a criteria the State Department uses in setting annual quotas for legal immigrants from foreign countries.

It doesn't matter, the kids are born into US jurisdiction. The whole point of the 14th is equality under the law. If you are born here, you deserve the same rights and privleges as anyone else.
No, they are not. Attempting to change the meaning of the amendment through reinterpretation does not make it so. These children have no more right to be here than their parents.


Both preferably.
I'll see what is out there.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And there is usually a good reason for these exceptions. What loophole in the Constitution permits dening birthright citizenship.
What loophole in the Constitution bypasses freedom of speech? After all you cannot yell FIRE! in a theator. ;) Where's the loophole that says the government can make you wait a certain period while they check your record before you can buy that handgun? Or that you must carry a concealed weapons permit when you carry that gun in the inside of your jacket?

Point being is that there are exceptions that can be made despite what the Constitution says. When there is a need to do so. It just needs to pass through Congress.

Customs of war are different than civilian law. They are still enemy combatants under the command of a foreign power.
A spy can still be tried and hanged under both war laws and civilian laws. Both of those have the same punishment for the same thing.

He's using our treatment of Native Americans at a time when we treated them horribly as legal precedent. I'm saying that doesn't make sense, because our treatment of them then was filled with violence, double-standards, and broken promises.
Our treatment of them holds no power when it comes to legalities. That is the way of law. If the legal precedent was set then obviously it can still be valid, no matter the circumstances. At least it will be valid until such a ruling is overruled by a higher (or same level) court at a later date. What you're doing here is trying to use emotionalism to argue your case. Sorry but emotions mean nothing when it comes to law.

Some people on the internet =/= all Illegals. Most come for jobs most don't care all that much about land-grabbing, or anchor babies for that matter.
Yes I know, not all illegals come to do bad. But when we have gangs like the 18th street gang which is made up of hispanics and are around 30k strong then we have a problem. Last I heard law enforcement officials estimated that at least half of them were in the US illegally. And that is just one gang. In one area of the US. That doesn't count the Surenos which is not only bigger than the 18th street gang but is also entirely made up people that work for the Mexican Mafia. And they're alot better organized than the 18th street gang also. How many in that one is illegal?

But lets focus, for now, on the ones that are here just to work and live the good life. How are they going about doing that? Are they working under the table? If so then they're not paying taxes. Which is illegal. If they have an anchor baby then that baby can get welfare assistance...and by default they get it also...though of course not "officially". So they're not paying taxes and still getting welfare. Of course then there is the schooling for their children, anchor baby or not. They are literally over running our schools. And then there is the medical bills. An illegal gets free medical services. After all how is the hospital going to collect money from someone that "doesn't exist" in the US?

Now how about the ones that were able to get a legitimate job? How did they get it? By using either a fake or a stolen social security number. While the stolen SS# may not affect anyone directly the stolen one sure does. And they can use that stolen one to get as much welfare as they want/need also. Putting even further strain on our welfare program than it is without them.

Point is that even the ones that are not out to do bad still hurt us.

You can state that the law needs to be changed, but you not liking it doesn't make it go away.
While it may not make it go away immediately it may make it go away eventually. Remember those exceptions that we were talking about? One can be made for this also.

So does sending them back to Honduras
Another cry to emotionalism. Perhaps instead of spending all of their money to get to the US illegally then maybe they would have been able to either make things a bit safer for them in Honduras or used it to get a ticket to the US legally. Point being is that it should not be our problem to solve. But thiers. We have our own problems to deal with and our own people that are dying through murder or sleeping out in the streets. My folks once told me..."before you can help others you must first be able to help yourself". That statement applies here as well. It's great to help others. It truely is. But if you do so before you are fully able to then you will eventually end up in the persons shoes that you were trying to help, thereby making it impossible to help others.



I support making the process simpler. I still don't see how an Anchor baby being born here screws over those waiting in line any more than a typical natural-born citizen.
I'll just say one word...Quotas.



That's a separate issue.
Was not part of your arguement about equality under the law? If everything was truely equal under the law then I would be getting a check from the government every month like the Indians do. My example was to show you that not everything is equal under the law.

Give the parents a choice, take the kid with them, put it in foster care, or wait in line (one with a simpler, cheaper, and fairer process of course).
Giving the parents a choice may not be in the best interest of the child. It is not our governments responsibility to take care of the parents so they must be sent back to their country of origin. Also it is the law that they must be sent back. Lets use the country in your example...Honduras. Would it be in the best interest of the child, who the government is concerned about since he/she is a US Citizen, to let that child go back with his parents to Honduras? The kid would have to go into foster care...which again..puts a strain on our system. A strain that never would have happened had the parents not come here illegally. For the simple fact that they would either not be here in the first place or they would be here legally, in which case they would be keeping thier kid.

Let them wait in line? Sorry, no can do. At least they can't wait in line inside the US. They could in thier country of origin though. The law states that illegals must be deported. As for making it cheaper? You do realize that the fee they pay to come to the US goes towards part of the bill to keep the immigration office open and available to those that do come here legally? Sorry but making it cheaper isn't really feasible.

Make the way in easier? Why? What obligation do we have towards someone of another country? Do we not have an obligation to our citizens first and foremost? If they want in then they should have to prove that they will not be a strain on our resources. Prove that they will obey our laws. Prove that they know the basics of our law system. And there are probably other things that I would name if I was awake enough to think of them. Nothing less will suffice.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,003
Reaction score
28,049
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The main problem with illegal immigrants is that they're illegal not that they're immigrants. Make the laws easier to follow, and they will be able to be more functioning members of society.

BTW I'm not calling for open borders, amnesty, or not stepping up enforcement of our laws, just giving those who aren't highly skilled workers and people or have relatives here to get in. I'm sick of addressing this.
But until that time, they need to keep their asses on the otherside of the border.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The main problem with illegal immigrants is that they're illegal not that they're immigrants. Make the laws easier to follow, and they will be able to be more functioning members of society.

BTW I'm not calling for open borders, amnesty, or not stepping up enforcement of our laws, just giving those who aren't highly skilled workers and people or have relatives here to get in. I'm sick of addressing this.
How are the laws so hard to follow now? How hard is it to not cross the border illegally? How hard is it to fill out some forms and do some reading and answer some questions and pay the fee? ...well I can understand the fee being hard to pay. But considering the costs to have immigration offices open the fee is entirely understandable.

Geeze...you make it sound like they have to run a marathon backwards and blindfolded while climbing a mountain. Following the law is not that hard.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Like Crunch, that alone is reason enough for me. One aim of our immigration law & policy for over 100 years has been to try & keep criminals from entering the country. That has proven to be a wise policy. Why change?
Illegals have already proven that they do not respect our immigration, labor, or fraud laws. What in the world convinces you that they will respect any of our other laws? The high violent crime rate among illegals, both against each other & legal residents should be an indication of what we can expect.
Retribution may be reason enough for you, but those of us who actually want the economy to prosper recognize the benefit of these workers to our country, and don't feel the need to hurt people, just because their skin is a different color. I get that you're mad, but anger isn't a logical argument. What is the economic benefit of having less cheap labor? Especially labor that is cheaper than any American citizen is willing to work for?
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Wrong definition. They would have to obey our laws whether they were here legally or illegally (unless of course they have diplomatic immunity). Being under their home countries jurisdiction means they have the right to petition their countries embassy or consulates for assistance in any number of areas. When they come under our jurisdiction they lose that privilege.
Yet when the kid pops out, he's still on US soil. The child is within US jurisdiction
???
We were discussing foreign army's as apply to the Kim Wong ark decision. Under that narrow parameter it would mean they were on our soil in time of conflict. In these circumstances a member of said foreign army can be treated as a spy if he is out & about in anything but his uniform.

Because he is sill under command of a foreign power.

Just a sad fact. Our ancestors poor judgment & bad actions then do not justify making the children of illegals citizens now. (My mixed heritage puts me on both sides of this issue...)

Yes, but that doesn't make it better precedent.

There are those in La Raza who see it that way:

Aztlan Dream to Retake the Southwestern United States



I do not personally think they can pull it off, but the idea is out there.
La Raza =/= illegal immigrants.

But it is.
It is one tool of many that can make the idea of coming in illegally less attractive.



When combined with things like mandatory use of e-verify, prosecution of employers who willfully hire illegals (a criminal act under current statutes) for whatever their individual reasons may be, ICE sweeps of job-sites where illegals are typically employed, finishing the border fence & increased border enforcement, ordering Internal revenue to investigate fraudulent & duplicated SS numbers & passing relevant info onto ICE, and any other good ideas that come along, the incentive for illegals to enter is reduced along with the security & law enforcement problems a large illegal presence causes.
Jobs are by far the most important draw here. The process isn't a simple, have your kids here, and you're a citizen. You have to wait until the kid reaches an age of majority to apply for immigration.

Not so. They are the child of an illegal alien, & the status of the child is the same as the status of the parent under the intent of the amendment. The fact that neither political party has had the courage to codify this with statute is the only reason there is any ambiguity. It should also be a source of great shame to those responsible.
The legal precedent and language of the Amendment don't state this. If the Radical Republicans cared as much as they did, they should have made it more clear.

They don't, & that is the problem. The children of other parents from their countries will have to wait longer to get in because the number of anchor babies born is a criteria the State Department uses in setting annual quotas for legal immigrants from foreign countries.
Then raise the quotas. It's also of my opinion that anchor babies should be considered natural-born citizens since they are born in the US, and are given US citizenship at birth.

No, they are not. Attempting to change the meaning of the amendment through reinterpretation does not make it so. These children have no more right to be here than their parents.
If my dad takes a gun and shoots someone, does that make me legally responsible for his actions? The kid had nothing to do with it. The original intent of the 14th was to give equal protection to people born here no matter what their accident of birth.

I'll see what is out there.
Thanks
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What loophole in the Constitution bypasses freedom of speech? After all you cannot yell FIRE! in a theator. ;) Where's the loophole that says the government can make you wait a certain period while they check your record before you can buy that handgun? Or that you must carry a concealed weapons permit when you carry that gun in the inside of your jacket?



Point being is that there are exceptions that can be made despite what the Constitution says. When there is a need to do so. It just needs to pass through Congress.
Yelling "fire" is violating the rights of others by putting them in danger. How does birthright citizenship affect the rights of others? Congress is not allowed to go against the constitution whenever it wants.


Our treatment of them holds no power when it comes to legalities. That is the way of law. If the legal precedent was set then obviously it can still be valid, no matter the circumstances. At least it will be valid until such a ruling is overruled by a higher (or same level) court at a later date. What you're doing here is trying to use emotionalism to argue your case. Sorry but emotions mean nothing when it comes to law.
Elk v. Wilkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indian reservations while not foreign powers were considered "distinct alien nations" not subject to US jurisdiction as the government had to (at least was supposed to) deal with tribes with treaties. It is a double-standard that has been revoked since anyway.



Yes I know, not all illegals come to do bad. But when we have gangs like the 18th street gang which is made up of hispanics and are around 30k strong then we have a problem. Last I heard law enforcement officials estimated that at least half of them were in the US illegally. And that is just one gang. In one area of the US. That doesn't count the Surenos which is not only bigger than the 18th street gang but is also entirely made up people that work for the Mexican Mafia. And they're alot better organized than the 18th street gang also. How many in that one is illegal?
That's still not most illegals. Illegals generally don't commit too many crimes (other than coming here illegally of course), because they want to stay under the radar.

But lets focus, for now, on the ones that are here just to work and live the good life. How are they going about doing that? Are they working under the table? If so then they're not paying taxes. Which is illegal. If they have an anchor baby then that baby can get welfare assistance...and by default they get it also...though of course not "officially". So they're not paying taxes and still getting welfare. Of course then there is the schooling for their children, anchor baby or not. They are literally over running our schools. And then there is the medical bills. An illegal gets free medical services. After all how is the hospital going to collect money from someone that "doesn't exist" in the US?
Now how about the ones that were able to get a legitimate job? How did they get it? By using either a fake or a stolen social security number. While the stolen SS# may not affect anyone directly the stolen one sure does. And they can use that stolen one to get as much welfare as they want/need also. Putting even further strain on our welfare program than it is without them.

Let's ignore that I'm for cracking down on illegal immigration. Illegals do not qualify for Medicare, SS, and other federal entitlements. They may qualify for local or state welfare, but they have also have to pay sales tax and property tax in the unlikely event that they have to pay property taxes.
Point is that even the ones that are not out to do bad still hurt us.


While it may not make it go away immediately it may make it go away eventually. Remember those exceptions that we were talking about? One can be made for this also.



Another cry to emotionalism.
I'm not being emotional. There was a discussion on the child's welfare. US citizenship has obvious benefits.

Perhaps instead of spending all of their money to get to the US illegally then maybe they would have been able to either make things a bit safer for them in Honduras or used it to get a ticket to the US legally. Point being is that it should not be our problem to solve. But thiers. We have our own problems to deal with and our own people that are dying through murder or sleeping out in the streets. My folks once told me..."before you can help others you must first be able to help yourself". That statement applies here as well. It's great to help others. It truely is. But if you do so before you are fully able to then you will eventually end up in the persons shoes that you were trying to help, thereby making it impossible to help others.
I think the vast majority would go back with their parents. Foster care would be a drop in the bucket compared to now.

I'll just say one word...Quotas. [/QUOTE]

See previous post.



Was not part of your arguement about equality under the law? If everything was truely equal under the law then I would be getting a check from the government every month like the Indians do. My example was to show you that not everything is equal under the law.
Personally I think people shouldn't get a check, because of the actions of dead men. I just don't want to derail the thread.

Giving the parents a choice may not be in the best interest of the child. It is not our governments responsibility to take care of the parents so they must be sent back to their country of origin. Also it is the law that they must be sent back. Lets use the country in your example...Honduras. Would it be in the best interest of the child, who the government is concerned about since he/she is a US Citizen, to let that child go back with his parents to Honduras? The kid would have to go into foster care...which again..puts a strain on our system. A strain that never would have happened had the parents not come here illegally. For the simple fact that they would either not be here in the first place or they would be here legally, in which case they would be keeping thier kid.
See above

Let them wait in line? Sorry, no can do. At least they can't wait in line inside the US. They could in thier country of origin though. The law states that illegals must be deported. As for making it cheaper? You do realize that the fee they pay to come to the US goes towards part of the bill to keep the immigration office open and available to those that do come here legally? Sorry but making it cheaper isn't really feasible.

Make the way in easier? Why? What obligation do we have towards someone of another country? Do we not have an obligation to our citizens first and foremost? If they want in then they should have to prove that they will not be a strain on our resources. Prove that they will obey our laws. Prove that they know the basics of our law system. And there are probably other things that I would name if I was awake enough to think of them. Nothing less will suffice.
http://reason.com/assets/db/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg
 
Top Bottom