• 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!

How do Republicans expect this to pass?

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Depends on how they write it. If they write it in a way that attempts to declare children born in the US are NOT US citizens, it will get struck down on 14th Amendment issues.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What is the article author basing his claim that they will "likely" introduce this on?
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Depends on how they write it. If they write it in a way that attempts to declare children born in the US are NOT US citizens, it will get struck down on 14th Amendment issues.
WE need to end the Anchor Baby crap anyhoots. I'm all for doing so, and setting say... 12 years back. So any kid born to an illegal 12 years ago to present is no longer a citizen.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
WE need to end the Anchor Baby crap anyhoots. I'm all for doing so, and setting say... 12 years back. So any kid born to an illegal 12 years ago to present is no longer a citizen.
OK, now don't pass out. I agree with you. I think it is absurd for an illegal alien to come here, have a child, and that child is automatically a US citizen. This is NOT the intention of the 14th Amendment. To me, any child born of parents that are NOT US citizens could only become US citizens in one of two ways (assuming the child is still a minor): 1) Their parents become US citizens; 2) They go through the citizenship process, themselves. Now, I see a lot of legal issues with my proposal, but some legal minds better than mine could probably word something that would both suffice and not violate the 14th Amendment.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
OK, now don't pass out. I agree with you. I think it is absurd for an illegal alien to come here, have a child, and that child is automatically a US citizen. This is NOT the intention of the 14th Amendment. To me, any child born of parents that are NOT US citizens could only become US citizens in one of two ways (assuming the child is still a minor): 1) Their parents become US citizens; 2) They go through the citizenship process, themselves. Now, I see a lot of legal issues with my proposal, but some legal minds better than mine could probably word something that would both suffice and not violate the 14th Amendment.
It's a problem that if it required a Constitutional Convention, would be worth doing. Though that route is filled with danger and should be treaded on lightly.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
OK, now don't pass out. I agree with you. I think it is absurd for an illegal alien to come here, have a child, and that child is automatically a US citizen. This is NOT the intention of the 14th Amendment. To me, any child born of parents that are NOT US citizens could only become US citizens in one of two ways (assuming the child is still a minor): 1) Their parents become US citizens; 2) They go through the citizenship process, themselves. Now, I see a lot of legal issues with my proposal, but some legal minds better than mine could probably word something that would both suffice and not violate the 14th Amendment.
It's a problem that if it required a Constitutional Convention, would be worth doing. Though that route is filled with danger and should be treaded on lightly.
The clouds have parted, the light has shown.
OMG! CC and Vich agree on something.....:shock:
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's a problem that if it required a Constitutional Convention, would be worth doing. Though that route is filled with danger and should be treaded on lightly.
I would agree. Because of the clarity of the 14th Amendment, even though creating "anchor babies" was not it's intent, the only solution I can see is to Amend the Constitution.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The clouds have parted, the light has shown.
OMG! CC and Vich agree on something.....:shock:
I know. Pretty bizarre. :2razz: IF MrV and I ever discussed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he'd probably discover another issue that we agree on, nearly 100%.

Wanna see something weirder? Watch Goobieman and I talk about health care. He fully endorsed my health care proposal. :shock:
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WE need to end the Anchor Baby crap anyhoots. I'm all for doing so, and setting say... 12 years back. So any kid born to an illegal 12 years ago to present is no longer a citizen.
the problem is that is an ex post facto law.
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kinda. It uses the 14th Amendment in ways that were unintended.
you might be able to change the citizensip criteria, but i don't think you can use that to take away citizenship of someone who already has it.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
you might be able to change the citizensip criteria, but i don't think you can use that to take away citizenship of someone who already has it.
Actually, there is a way around this. The 14th Amendment, the Amendment concerning citizenship in this case, could be considered part of "administrative law". When it comes to administrative law, federal agencies, like those around immigration and citizenship CAN apply a law retroactively if Congress authorizes it. Hence, though it could be declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS, Congressional authorization would trump this. So, if Congress passed an act that indicated that "anchor babies" were no longer citizens, being that this is administrative law, SCOTUS would accept this. Interestingly, there are cases of precedence on BOTH sides of the issue, so this would be a very contentious issue to sort out.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals - Yahoo! News

Seriously? The COTUS clearly states those born here are Citizens. IMO this seems blatantly unconstitutional.
I think we should go by the intentions of the authors of the 14th amendment. Which was to make the freed slaves citizens, not everybody born in the US. Why else have the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 that made anyone born in the US a citizen if section 1 of the 14th applied to anyone born on US soil?


I like the idea of denying birth certificates to children of illegals. It doesn't actually deny them citizenship but at the same time no birth certificate for children of illegals.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I would agree. Because of the clarity of the 14th Amendment, even though creating "anchor babies" was not it's intent, the only solution I can see is to Amend the Constitution.
Some time ago when this issue was first addressed on this board, (See thread ), I suggested the following revision to the 14th Amendment:

Come to think of it, you might be right.

SC case U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, a case that has been referenced to death concerning Pres. Obama's natural-born status, set the standard for granting U.S. citizenship onto persons born in this country to non-U.S. citizen parents as long as the parents weren't foreign diplomants and had previously established residency INCONUS. Congress could go the route of trying to change the conditions of "U.S. jurisdiction" without adding the 1-parent requirement, but I doubt that would fly due to aspects of common law.

So, upon further review, I have to agree. The only way this 1-parent requirement for children born INCONUS to alien parents flies is if the 14th Amendment is changed to read:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to parents, one of whom is a U.S. citizen, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside and are, therefore deemed natural-born, except for persons born to non-resident immigrants."
Or words to that effect as outlined in RED. I doubt it will happen, but...:(
In the wake of all the controversy concerning Pres. Obama's birth and now the debate surrounding enforcement of AZ's immigration law, it just makes sense to revise the 14th Amendment, as well as INA law to address this problem rather trying to implement a new law on the matter. Frankly, I don't think you can resolve this issue without changing the 14th Amendment first. Therefore, IMO, any other attempt to address the matter outside of the revising the 14th Amendment is doomed to failure.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
"necessary and proper" among other measures will permit the passage of an act or amendment that is intended to clarify or solidify ambiguous issues if Congress agrees on it.

If something is becoming a notable *problem* and is undermining other important and constitutionally protected rights of the people and permissions and protections that the government is meant to ensure and grant then you have to choose what's more important and what must go - things aren't set in stone, they're flexible to permit our country to function at it's peak rather than being crippled by a word-centered handicap.

Burning the flag is a non issue - it's merely expressing an opinion, it's not hurting anyone, it doesn't directly effect us or the government - thus - even though Congress wanted to, it couldn't make it illegal.

But natural-born illegals whose parents could likely be deported due to activities and status pose a direct effect (negatively) on our health care system, school system and other areas in which the government and us as tax payers have to shoulder the weight of their presence. Thus, it's well within the government's jurisdiction and right to alter or further define the laws that govern who is a natural-born and who isn't.

So, the issue of "is it constitutional for them to ixnay chorbabyanay " isn't really debatable - if Congress says yet then there you go, it's within their right.

Now, whether they will go about doing it - and the details surrounding who should be effected and what to do with the parents of children who are already here - is very debatable.

While I think it's wrong for a parent to use their children to try to anchor their selves here - I also feel its' wrong to disconnect children from the country that they were born and grew up in. It's not their fault that their parent's are here illegally and they shouldn't instantly become our responsibility if their parents were to be deported for some reason.

Overall - keeping a family together should be our government's ultimate focus when making these decisions.
 
Last edited:

Moon

Why so serious?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
9,558
Reaction score
4,921
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm really wondering if this legislation isn't being proposed to serve a larger purpose, as in forcing the SCOTUS to address illegal immigration in regards to the 14th amendment. Barring that, it could open the door to a drive to amend or repeal the 14th amendment.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I get a feeling that a lot of Democrats would likely support some type of measure to further define who and who cannot become a natural born citizen.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,494
Reaction score
50,046
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
115,068
Reaction score
32,526
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I hold jus soli dear. It is important to me that anyone born on this soil is born free; I'll be damned if anyone born on my land is ever be subject to tyranny against their will. If you're born here, I got your back. And that's that.
 
Last edited:

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,494
Reaction score
50,046
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I hold jus soli dear. It is important to me that anyone born on this soil is born free; I'll be damned if anyone born on my land will ever be subject to tyranny.

If you're born here, I got your back. And that's that.

So let's be clear.

If Pedro and Juanita sneak into the country illegally, and while they're here they have a baby (let's call him Chico), then you support Chico being a US Citizen?

Since Chico can't take care of himself, is it now okay for Pedro and Juanita to stay in the US, even though they entered illegally? When Chico is grown and able to support himself, do we deport Pedro and Juanita?

It's an issue that has gotten a bit more complicated in recent decades, than it used to be.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
115,068
Reaction score
32,526
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I didn't say the parents can stay. But if I were they, I'd do the same even understanding full well that I might not get to stay with my kid. I'd get my kid born free, whatever the cost may be.


I'd lie, cheat and steal... just like Obama mama ;)
 
Last edited:

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
WE need to end the Anchor Baby crap anyhoots. I'm all for doing so, and setting say... 12 years back. So any kid born to an illegal 12 years ago to present is no longer a citizen.
yeah, right like any retroactive Law is going to be enacted.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm really wondering if this legislation isn't being proposed to serve a larger purpose, as in forcing the SCOTUS to address illegal immigration in regards to the 14th amendment. Barring that, it could open the door to a drive to amend or repeal the 14th amendment.
I get a feeling that a lot of Democrats would likely support some type of measure to further define who and who cannot become a natural born citizen.
It appears the Dems are already working on bringing about Immigration Reform, but per this article from Time Magazine (online) article, the Reps aren't being very cooperative...again.

Wanted: a Republican Senator willing to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats and the Obama Administration on a bipartisan bill on immigration reform that's already half done. The Democrats have been scrambling to find such a brave soul since Republican Senator Lindsey Graham left the talks after Dems shelved an energy bill he'd been working on. Democratic negotiators Chuck Schumer of New York, Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have even unveiled the bones of the bill they'd hammered out with Graham in hopes of luring another Republican on board. "What [Republicans] said before the Democrats produced the framework was that they need to see the paper," says Frank Sharry, director of America's Voice, an immigration advocacy group. "Now that they've seen the paper, they seem to be finding other reasons not to sign on."

Read more: Immigration Reform: GOP Senators Avoid Bipartisan Bill - TIME
There's alot more to this article than just a bipartisan effort to immigration reform. There's also details concering beefing up boarder security and deportation efforts from within the Obama Administration - two things I don't think are being discussed enough lately or that the current Administration are being given enough credit for. Now, to be fair, the number of senior Republicans in the House is dweldling. Still, that doesn't mean that both sides shouldn't be more willing to work together to bring about meaningful reform.
 
Top Bottom