How do Republicans expect this to pass?

[drz-400]

I suppose it is, but it is past time we considered that we need an Amendment that says "children born in the USA with at least one parent who IS a citizen, are natural born citizens."

The anchor-baby loophole needs to be closed.

How do we prove who the father is? We are innocent until proven guilty.

 

[samsmart]

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.

But I don't think that will really change anything. So instead of having a child who is a citizen and the parents can stay, immigrants can have a child who is a citizen and go through the citizenship process and get a green card. So the U.S. now has 2 new citizens to take care of instead of one. I don't think that will get rid of anchor babies, if that's your attempt, but rather make it's use more likely since the parent can benefit as well.

I'm not arguing against your proposal, as I agree to it. However, I don't think it'll do it's intended purpose, which is to put an end to anchor babies.

 

[samsmart]

I suppose it is, but it is past time we considered that we need an Amendment that says "children born in the USA with at least one parent who IS a citizen, are natural born citizens."

The anchor-baby loophole needs to be closed.

So instead of having illegal immigrants crossing into the border and giving birth to an anchor baby, we're going to have illegal immigrants crossing into the border and then paying Americans to impregnate them or allow themselves to be impregnated by them in order to be the parent of an anchor baby?

 

[Wiseone]

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've always seen what I consider to be some pretty wacky stuff from you but this takes the cake. You really should read the document you claim to defend so well and passionatly, Article 1 Section 9 and 10 will clearly tell you that Congress and the States have no power to pass Ex Post Facto laws. Its as clear as day.

 

[samsmart]

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?

Those laws could have been passed to clarify the 14th Amendment, not supersede them.

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.

I don't like that at all. I think all children born in the U.S. should have proof of their birth. Besides, do you know what a bureaucratic nightmare it would lead to?

 

[Wiseone]

I don't like that at all. I think all children born in the U.S. should have proof of their birth. Besides, do you know what a bureaucratic nightmare it would lead to?

Just on a humorous note, what if one of them ran for President??

 

[American]

I suggest that the purpose of this law is to force a constitutional court case to finally put an end to the matter. It's time this country decide whether we live by laws or not.

Thomas Jefferson said:

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808. ME 12:59

"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408

"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113

No reasonable person would interpret that amendment to mean that ANYONE merely born on US soil IS a citizen, without considering the context of the birth. If a Mexican women runs over the US border, has a baby, then takes it back to Mexico; has she kidnapped a US citizen? Certainly not. Court cases also show that American Indians were not consider citizens. Making anyone a US citizen merely by coming out of a womb over US soil, would negate most power of Congress to determine immigration laws. Certainly the 14th Amendment does not nullify power given in Article 1, Section 8.

subject to the jurisdiction thereof

I think this part is key. What does this mean, and why is it in the amendment? Why not just say, "Any person born in the US"; if the intent was anyone born in the US? Thomas Jefferson would rather NARROWLY construe so to force an amendment to construe a meaning further? It doesn't get much more conservative than that.

 

[jamesrage]

I suggest that the purpose of this law is to force a constitutional court case to finally put an end to the matter. It's time this country decide whether we live by laws or not.

Thomas Jefferson said:


No reasonable person would interpret that amendment to mean that ANYONE merely born on US soil IS a citizen, without considering the context of the birth. If a Mexican women runs over the US border, has a baby, then takes it back to Mexico; has she kidnapped a US citizen? Certainly not. Court cases also show that American Indians were not consider citizens. Making anyone a US citizen merely by coming out of a womb over US soil, would negate most power of Congress to determine immigration laws. Certainly the 14th Amendment does not nullify power given in Article 1, Section 8.


I think this part is key. What does this mean, and why is it in the amendment? Why not just say, "Any person born in the US"; if the intent was anyone born in the US? Thomas Jefferson would rather NARROWLY construe so to force an amendment to construe a meaning further? It doesn't get much more conservative than that.

You are correct. It wasn't until the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 that made anyone born in the US a citizen. So What Arizona is doing does not violate the constitution.

 

[Objective Voice]

...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

Interesting that this issue has once again popped up. This linked article goes into great detail on exactly what "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." means. The common interpretation, which I believe is accurate, is (paraphrase) "those individuals born in-country (jas solis) who are bound by the laws of the land both territorial (city, county, state) and nationally (federal)" are citizens. The question then becomes what binds an individual born in this country to the law? Based on the context of the linked article, it's more than just being born here. Even the article makes it clear that atleast one parent must be a U.S. citizen (born here or naturalized) in order for U.S. citizenship to be conferred onto the child. Unfortunately, the ramifications of Wong Kim Ark kinda muddied the waters on that simple prerequisite. Our INA laws have since allowed for infants born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizen parents to be granted U.S. citizenship based solely on jus soli which I belief is a mistake. (See INA, Sect. 1401(a) and/or U.S. Foreign Affairs Manual, Ch 7, Sect 1111(a) & (b)).

While I agree that granting blanket U.S. citizenship to infants born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizen parents is wrong, I do belief that the question of granting a child U.S. citizenship and subsequently declarating that child's citizenship status to be "natural-born" could and should be more clearly defined because it still leaves open the question of "dual-citizenship" falling under the "natural-born" status when only one parent is him or herself a U.S. citizen, such as the case with our President.* Granted, the latter isn't the issue here, but I'm sure someone will bring it up again.

Bottom line: IMO, if neither parent are U.S. citizens, the child born unto illegal alien parents shouldn't be granted U.S. citizenship. To those who say the child shouldn't be issued a birth certificate but instead be issue some other form of birth document, i.e., an affidavit of birth born abroad, I agree. This would help eliminate the automatic declaration of those children born here to non-citizen parents who themselves have no intention of becoming U.S. citizens. (See Wong Kim Ark above as the exception and not the rule here.) Of course, I think it would take changing the 14th Amendment and/or INA laws to further clarify this issue.

*The issue of Pres. Obama's birth has been upheld in lower district courts where the question of a child's citizenship and natural-born status has been upheld by virtue of said child being born to one alien parent and one U.S. citizen parent.

 

[American]

Interesting that this issue has once again popped up. This linked article goes into great detail on exactly what "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." means. The common interpretation, which I believe is accurate, is (paraphrase) "those individuals born in-country (jas solis) who are bound by the laws of the land both territorial (city, county, state) and nationally (federal)" are citizens. The question then becomes what binds an individual born in this country to the law? Based on the context of the linked article, it's more than just being born here. Even the article makes it clear that atleast one parent must be a U.S. citizen (born here or naturalized) in order for U.S. citizenship to be conferred onto the child. Unfortunately, the ramifications of Wong Kim Ark kinda muddied the waters on that simple prerequisite. Our INA laws have since allowed for infants born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizen parents to be granted U.S. citizenship based solely on jus soli which I belief is a mistake. (See INA, Sect. 1401(a) and/or U.S. Foreign Affairs Manual, Ch 7, Sect 1111(a) & (b)).

While I agree that granting blanket U.S. citizenship to infants born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizen parents is wrong, I do belief that the question of granting a child U.S. citizenship and subsequently declarating that child's citizenship status to be "natural-born" could and should be more clearly defined because it still leaves open the question of "dual-citizenship" falling under the "natural-born" status when only one parent is him or herself a U.S. citizen, such as the case with our President.* Granted, the latter isn't the issue here, but I'm sure someone will bring it up again.

Bottom line: IMO, if neither parent are U.S. citizens, the child born unto illegal alien parents shouldn't be granted U.S. citizenship. To those who say the child shouldn't be issued a birth certificate but instead be issue some other form of birth document, i.e., an affidavit of birth born abroad, I agree. This would help eliminate the automatic declaration of those children born here to non-citizen parents who themselves have no intention of becoming U.S. citizens. (See Wong Kim Ark above as the exception and not the rule here.) Of course, I think it would take changing the 14th Amendment and/or INA laws to further clarify this issue.

*The issue of Pres. Obama's birth has been upheld in lower district courts where the question of a child's citizenship and natural-born status has been upheld by virtue of said child being born to one alien parent and one U.S. citizen parent.

There are illegal aliens, legal aliens (i.e., resident aliens) and US citizens. The first category complicates things for the second category, who are here with permission and usually fulfilling the requirements for naturalization.

 

[Goobieman]

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:

Yes -- and you found favor with mine!

 

[Objective Voice]

There are illegal aliens, legal aliens (i.e., resident aliens) and US citizens. The first category complicates things for the second category, who are here with permission and usually fulfilling the requirements for naturalization.

Okay...

I'm fully aware of that. Your point please, sir?

 

[obvious Child]

Note, I don't disagree that anchor babies need to be stopped, but COTUS in plain language flat up states if you are born here, you are a citizen. The Arizona Proposal to deny citizenship to people born of illegal parents is without question unconstitutional.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Note, I don't disagree that anchor babies need to be stopped, but COTUS in plain language flat up states if you are born here, you are a citizen. The Arizona Proposal to deny citizenship to people born of illegal parents is without question unconstitutional.

Are you suggesting that Amendments to the Constitution cannot be clarified, altered or changed due to situations and circumstances that evolve over time?

When/If the language in the Constitution is ambiguous and needs clarification, at the least, congress has the right to address that.

According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, of the COTUS Congress has the right and responsibility:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Naturalization INCLUDES citizenship. They passed the 14th Amendment, did they not? They were allowed to pass Amendment #14 because of the quoted Clause, correct?

Then, naturally, Congress has the right and power to amend the Constitution as it sees fit - if something is questionable then we have the SCOTUS to address that. If an Amendment is ambiguous (unclear) and needs some clarification - or if it proves to be non-beneficial or the result creates a less desirable situation than they were trying to avoid - then they have the right to repeal it or alter it as they see fit.

Take Prohibition as a fine example. It was the 18th Amendment (in 1919). It was repealed by the 21st Amendment (1933).

Obviously when an Amendment causes more problems than it prevents - it CAN and SHOULD be clarified or repealed to "stop digging the hole."

It encourages illegal activity which conflicts with other things within the Constitution. So they have to make a decision, it can't be left "as is" because "as is" isn't sufficient. If "as is" was sufficient then we wouldn't need the Scotus to determine if things are Constitutional or are not, would we? If we leave Amendment #14 "as is" without question then it would only be creating more and more of an already out of control problem.

 

[Zyphlin]

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.

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.

Again, like with Health Care, attempts at "bipartisanship" mean little if there's no teeth to make sure that the things your side wants actually happens or if the other sides desires are so adverse to what you want that its not worth getting a few things you like. Essentially, if going along with it doesn't get you enough to make it worth while to your constituents then you're doing them a disservice to act in "bipartisan" nature.

For example, I would not as a member of either house sign on to any bill in any way that gave a path to citizenship, amnesty, or anything else to those already here illegally in exchange for massively enhanced border enforcement and enforcement of our laws without it somehow being garaunteed in such a way to make it unquestionably certain that those latter portions WILL happen and with a staggered implimentation period where we see those things take affect PRIOR to the path/amnesty/etc.

Without such a measure included I could not agree to any kind of bill, no matter how many bones you throw to my side in the name of bipartisanship. Why? Because the federal government has shown it has no desire in any way shape or form to enforce the laws it currently has in the books, and has shown in the past to not make good on agreements to strengthen border security, so why should I vote for a bill that would INSTANTLY do something I disagree with while having to wait and hold onto good faith that the things I wanted in the bill will actually happen or be instituted?

 

[Zyphlin]

The odd thing about this...

I hope if it gets to the Supreme Court they rule against it. As much as I hate the notion of anchor babies its clear the constitution allows it even if it wasn't its intent. And if I don't like people magically creating new rights and new things that the constitution "says" without actually literally saying it then I should be consistant with that view regardless of whether or not I like the outcome.

There's a way to fix it...amend the constitution.

 

[Moon]

The odd thing about this...

I hope if it gets to the Supreme Court they rule against it. As much as I hate the notion of anchor babies its clear the constitution allows it even if it wasn't its intent. And if I don't like people magically creating new rights and new things that the constitution "says" without actually literally saying it then I should be consistant with that view regardless of whether or not I like the outcome.

There's a way to fix it...amend the constitution.

That's pretty much where I'm at as well. Even if this law makes it to SCOTUS and is upheld, there's nothing to stop a future court from deciding it is unconstitutional. The only real permanent remedy is to amend the constitution

 

[samsmart]

Well, personally, I don't mind anchor babies so much. Those immigrants who come over here and have anchor babies are doing so to try to earn for themselves a better life. The reasons why is because their home nation has too much economic and/or political instability to be safe. But the U.S., compared to many other nations, is relatively stable and safe. And I think someone with that much drive and ambition to come over here are benefits to this country, not burdens. And I'd like to think that by having them over here and living in a stable country can inspire them to go back and stabilize their country of origin, and make the world a little bit better all around.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The odd thing about this...

I hope if it gets to the Supreme Court they rule against it. As much as I hate the notion of anchor babies its clear the constitution allows it even if it wasn't its intent. And if I don't like people magically creating new rights and new things that the constitution "says" without actually literally saying it then I should be consistant with that view regardless of whether or not I like the outcome.

There's a way to fix it...amend the constitution.

I agree with you, here - it's the responsibility and within the jurisdiction of the Federal government and federal government ALONE to address naturalization and citizenship issues. States were not granted with the right to govern citizenship.

I agree - amend the Constitution - a state does not have the supremacy powers to pass this.

 

[obvious Child]

Are you suggesting that Amendments to the Constitution cannot be clarified, altered or changed due to situations and circumstances that evolve over time?

Not at all. But history does suggest that amending the Consitution is extremely difficult. At the moment, I don't see how the GOP bill has a chance in hell of surviving Judicial Review. Furthermore, the language in question is not ambigious.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Not at all. But history does suggest that amending the Consitution is extremely difficult. At the moment, I don't see how the GOP bill has a chance in hell of surviving Judicial Review. Furthermore, the language in question is not ambigious.

Forgive me!

I posted that long post thinking I was in a different thread - in which we were discussing the 14th Amendment per COTUS and the whole subject in general and not this bill in Arizona :doh:lamo

 

[Quintin]

I would say given the information the kids can stay but not the parents (that are illegal immagrants).

 

[American]

Okay...

I'm fully aware of that. Your point please, sir?

I was merely adding to your point.

 

[American]

Well, personally, I don't mind anchor babies so much. Those immigrants who come over here and have anchor babies are doing so to try to earn for themselves a better life. The reasons why is because their home nation has too much economic and/or political instability to be safe. But the U.S., compared to many other nations, is relatively stable and safe. And I think someone with that much drive and ambition to come over here are benefits to this country, not burdens. And I'd like to think that by having them over here and living in a stable country can inspire them to go back and stabilize their country of origin, and make the world a little bit better all around.

And you think we'll stay stable if we continue to live by our emotions instead of the rule of law? So Congress has no authority or duty to control naturalization? Let them apply legally for the privilege of living here.

 

[American]

I would say given the information the kids can stay but not the parents (that are illegal immagrants).

This does not serve the best interests of the American people.