Governor Jan Brewer on illegals their children.

[jamesrage]

Re: Governor Jan Brewer on illegals and their children.

And one could argue that both of those laws were merely rectifying past convolutions and mistakes. "Subject to jurisdiction" is a nebulous phrase. Their parents came here illegally, but the kid committed no crime. The Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship in 1898 and 1982.

Those laws would not have been created if section 1 of the 14th applied to anyone born here.

Besides anchor baby status isn't that big of an issue. The main reason for illegal immigration is jobs. The parent can't get a resident visa until the child reaches the age of majority.

Actually the birthright citizenship is a separate issue from anchor baby status. What make a birthright citizen of an illegal alien a anchor baby is a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than the spouse or minor children. With this provision removed it would basically end anchor babies.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Re: Governor Jan Brewer on illegals and their children.

Those laws would not have been created if section 1 of the 14th applied to anyone born here.

Indian Citizenship Act: I would not hold up the US government's treatment of Native Americans before the 1920s as a paradigm of legality; the Us Government was correcting for past mistakes, and the Nationality Act of 1940 clarified citizenship. However, the Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship several times (i.e.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark) , and said that it cannot be taken away involuntarily.

Actually the birthright citizenship is a separate issue from anchor baby status. What make a birthright citizen of an illegal alien a anchor baby is a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than the spouse or minor children. With this provision removed it would basically end anchor babies.

I know, but I presume that this is at least part of your argument against birthright citizenship. You've used it in other threads.

 

[jamesrage]

Re: Governor Jan Brewer on illegals and their children.

Indian Citizenship Act: I would not hold up the US government's treatment of Native Americans before the 1920s as a paradigm of legality; the Us Government was correcting for past mistakes, and the Nationality Act of 1940 clarified citizenship. However, the Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship several times (i.e.United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) , and said that it cannot be taken away involuntarily.

Again if section 1 of the 14th applied there there would have not been a need for those two laws to be created.

I know, but I presume that this is at least part of your argument against birthright citizenship. You've used it in other threads.

I am against birthright citizenship because people coming here illegally or even tourist coming here legally and popping out babies should not make their children citizens. I admit that when I first heard about the children of illegals being used to facilitate the chain migration relatives other than spouse or minor children, I did not know why that was. It wasn't until I did a little research on the term anchor baby that I found out about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than the spouse or minor children.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Re: Governor Jan Brewer on illegals and their children.

Again if section 1 of the 14th applied there there would have not been a need for those two laws to be created.

Why? Legislators create pointless laws all of the time. Again, the Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship and prevented involuntary forfeiture of it several times.

I am against birthright citizenship because people coming here illegally or even tourist coming here legally and popping out babies should not make their children citizens. I admit that when I first heard about the children of illegals being used to facilitate the chain migration relatives other than spouse or minor children, I did not know why that was. It wasn't until I did a little research on the term anchor baby that I found out about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than the spouse or minor children.

And this really doesn't happen that much. Getting rid of birthright citizenship wouldn't put much of a dent in illegal immigration. By far, the most important draw to America for illegals is jobs.