- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?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 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.
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...
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 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.
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.
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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?