• 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!

Should citizenship be denied to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

Should citizenship be denied to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?


  • Total voters
    38

earthworm

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5,728
Reaction score
904
Location
Goldsboro,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Other
A problem exists,
Lets fix it as compassionate men and not reactionary animals.
Any takers?
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
43,118
Reaction score
14,766
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes, but I would not take it away from those who have it already and it needs to be changed federally. I would not expect it to happen immediately, but I think it should happen soon.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Other
A problem exists,
Lets fix it as compassionate men
and not reactionary animals.
Any takers?
A very wise and noble approach.

I'll take you up on that offer.

My thoughts are that it should be illegal (if it's not already) to use one aspect of the Constitution to breech or circumvent another. It should be a federal crime (for example) to exploit a loophole that automates citizenship,.... for the sole purpose of gaining access to social programs, medical and welfare assistance.

Agree?
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Yes, but I would not take it away from those who have it already and it needs to be changed federally. I would not expect it to happen immediately, but I think it should happen soon.
I don't like it,... but I tend to agree.

I don't see how anyone's citizen status can be revoked retroactively and not in some way render everyone elses status equally vulnerable.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,402
Reaction score
16,255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Letting the children of illegals have citizenship is the equivalent of letting someone keep a piece of stolen property that they bought off a crook seeing how anchor babies were only born here because their parents trespassed into the US. Section 1 of the 14th amendment was not written to apply to anyone born on US soil,it was written to apply to freed slaves. If section 1 of the 14th amendment applied to anyone born on US soil then they would have needed the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940?
 
Last edited:

Jucon

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
787
Reaction score
222
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes, but I would not take it away from those who have it already and it needs to be changed federally. I would not expect it to happen immediately, but I think it should happen soon.
I agree. However IMO US-born children of illegal immigrants who are born AFTER the bill should receive the citizenship of where ever their parents are from and not a U.S. citizenship. I could see it being a problem determining the parents' country of origin if they do not disclose it though.
 
Last edited:

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Without a doubt, legal permanent residents who are not yet citizens and give birth to kids, those kids should automatically be citizens. Otherwise you have the potential for a perpetual class of non-citizen residents and that's just a recipe for trouble. Beyond that, such a situation encourages more immigration. The real question is whether people here illegally should be able to get this as well. Again I say yes for the reason of not creating a perpetual non-citizen class. The border is never going to be secure. The border with Mexico is thousands of miles long and the coastline along the Gulf of Mexico is thousands of miles longer. The United States is a very rich country near a bunch of poor countries and this is going to create a constant desire from people in the poor countries to move to the rich one beyond what our current limits on legal immigration will allow. Finally, companies will always want the cheap labor even if you put harsh penalties (because this will just cause employers to be more careful about not being caught...after all strict enforcement and harsh penalties haven't stopped drug dealing so why should it stop hiring illegals, both are rather profitable). So we're always going to have illegals coming into the country (unless we raise the number of allowed immigrants by a lot) and without a doubt they will have children in this country. We can then either accept millions of dissatisfied, American born and raised people without citizenship rights (which is just a recipe for violence and unrest), or we can make the children citizens.

Now I know that's not exactly a popular view around here, but rounding up 13 million people hiding in the shadows of society with no real means to track is way less plausible than people seem to think it is, especially when there is money to be made by keeping them hidden by their employers. If you really want to be picky though how about this: the children can be citizens but if their parents are caught they must make the choice between bringing their child back to their home country and having that child forgo American citizenship, or they can put the child up for adoption in America. That would be a law consistent with the rule of law and with avoiding the whole underclass problem. Its not particularly nice but its better than the alternatives.
 

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
14,043
Reaction score
4,093
Location
Denton, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Had we adopted this law in 1795, we would all be illegals.
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
43,118
Reaction score
14,766
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Had we adopted this law in 1795, we would all be illegals.
Laws should adapt with the times. To be a citizen of this country at that time you pretty much just had to declare yourself one, and meet the requirements that came with it, such as being a white male.

Things are different now. Our country has established legal procedures to become a citizen if you are a citizen of another country. People who are going through the legal avenues of becoming citizens should expect their children to be legal citizens as well. Those who are not going through legal means of becoming citizens should not expect their children to be citizens automatically. There is a loophole right now that was originally enacted for a different, good reason, that isn't really fair today. It should be changed.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,889
Reaction score
50,802
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution said:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Looks like they should not be denied citizenship.
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
43,118
Reaction score
14,766
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Looks like they should not be denied citizenship.
Which is why that Arizona bill doesn't really pass constitutional muster. However, I think most people believe that the 14th Amendment was meant to cover freed slaves and their children. At that time, I'm sure they never imagined that we would be to a point where it is necessary to regulate the number of people who are coming into our country from other countries. Now it is being used as a loophole. Most likely it should have been changed when we initially enacted immigration laws. But since it wasn't, it would be good to do it now. Since we do have immigration laws, it makes sense that we are trying to regulate citizenship of our country. Rewording the 14th Amendment to excludes making future "anchor babies" citizens doesn't actually take rights away from any US citizens, as long as the wording ensures all US citizens' children are considered citizens.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,889
Reaction score
50,802
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Which is why that Arizona bill doesn't really pass constitutional muster. However, I think most people believe that the 14th Amendment was meant to cover freed slaves and their children. At that time, I'm sure they never imagined that we would be to a point where it is necessary to regulate the number of people who are coming into our country from other countries. Now it is being used as a loophole. Most likely it should have been changed when we initially enacted immigration laws. But since it wasn't, it would be good to do it now. Since we do have immigration laws, it makes sense that we are trying to regulate citizenship of our country. Rewording the 14th Amendment to excludes making future "anchor babies" citizens doesn't actually take rights away from any US citizens, as long as the wording ensures all US citizens' children are considered citizens.
Until the constitution is changed, it is still wrong to deny citizenship to people born in this country.
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
43,118
Reaction score
14,766
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Until the constitution is changed, it is still wrong to deny citizenship to people born in this country.
I do agree with this, which is why I really don't agree with that Arizona law. I understand what they are trying to do, I just think it would work better a different way.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,223
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I voted no. Denying someone US citizenship if they are born here is unconstitutional. Unless we amend the constitution no one should have their child's citizenship denied.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
:shock:
Looks like they should not be denied citizenship.


I agree.

But ones brand new subverively obtained "citizenship" shouldn't automatically translate into a "free ride at your fellow citizens expense" either.

"Ass, Gas or Grass.... No-one rides for free!"

:peace
 
Last edited:

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
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
On one hand, I personally think that no one should be automatically granted citizenship just because you were born.

But on the other hand, the potential for political snafu-ing of a larger test to become a citizen is frightening.
 

Travelsonic

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
327
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Letting the children of illegals have citizenship is the equivalent of letting someone keep a piece of stolen property that they bought off a crook seeing how anchor babies were only born here because their parents trespassed into the US.
I'm having trouble understanding how this analogy works.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simply if I would want it to be that way or not? Yes, children of illegals should not be citizens.

Whether its constitutional or not? Yes, it is constitutional that htey're citizens and should be until an amendment is passed
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Had we adopted this law in 1795, we would all be illegals.
Glad to see you're an advocate of slavery, you know...since you think whatever was the case 200+ years ago should be the same as it is today.

:roll:
 

LiberalAvenger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I voted no. Denying someone US citizenship if they are born here is unconstitutional. Unless we amend the constitution no one should have their child's citizenship denied.
I agree with you. The problem is that when the constitutions was ratified this country needed people. Now, thanks to the population explosion, it's the other way around. We are getting flooded by people taking advantage of an out of date amendment.

I would suggest that the words, "whose parents are legally in this country at their time of birth" be added to the original one.
 

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
14,043
Reaction score
4,093
Location
Denton, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Glad to see you're an advocate of slavery, you know...since you think whatever was the case 200+ years ago should be the same as it is today.

:roll:
No, it's just an amusing 'what if'.

America was populated from distant lands except for the local tribes. Many large groups received citizenship and cheap land just for coming here. The land is expensive now and the owners are attempting to turn America into a gated community. I cannot abide by this mentality. If those born here will not be American citizens, will they be citizens at all, anywhere?

Stupid idea.:(
 
Last edited:

Shadow Serious

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
1,460
Reaction score
395
Location
Oklahoma
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No, it's just an amusing 'what if'.

America was populated from distant lands except for the local tribes. Many large groups received citizenship and cheap land just for coming here. The land is expensive now and the owners are attempting to turn America into a gated community. I cannot abide by this mentality. If those born here will not be American citizens, will they be citizens at all, anywhere?

Stupid idea.:(
We DO NOT owe anybody citizenship anywhere what we should owe is citizenship to those who are willing to go thru the appropriate procedures to become such if neither parent is not a U.S. citizen and yes the barrier should not be such that only a lucky few can come in but at a rate that would not threaten our own culture such as it is.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, it's just an amusing 'what if'.

America was populated from distant lands except for the local tribes. Many large groups received citizenship and cheap land just for coming here. The land is expensive now and the owners are attempting to turn America into a gated community. I cannot abide by this mentality.
You can't abide by the mentality that what was true 200+ years ago can't feasibly be true today? You say no, yet your words keep pointing to you being all in favor of the days of forcing blacks to pick cotton. Since your only argument seems to be "its what it was before".

Previously these people were coming into an area that was relatively lightly populated. When the Europeans and then the Americans conquered the various portions of land and declared it "Theirs" the land was wide open, spread out, and needing to be lived upon. For these conquering people to be able to even put together a society they NEEDED individuals, as many as they could, to choose to come over and be a part of it or else it would've failed. There was a necessity to allowing it to happen as it benefited their goal as a society.

This is not the case today when our cities are over populated, our welfare system is financially strained, our unemployment is rising, our laws cause private industries to take great losses, and there is no longer a over arching large societal need to open and complete flooding of individuals into the country.

If you own an apartment complex you need to have people that want to move in or else you're not going to get any return on your investment. So you start off with great deals and loose regulations. However 20 years later if you're the best apartment complex in town its reasonable to have higher prices, tighter regulations, and a more strenuous application process because now its no longer you needing any and all individuals to make your business work but instead having such a huge demand for your space that you must be more stringent to maintain the high standards you've come to embody.

You probably use to work for $5.00 an hour or something similar. Should you be expected to ALWAYS make that because it was good enough for you at one point so it must always be fine? You once lived with your parents, should you always remain living with your parents because what was good for you at one point will always be best for you? No. As time goes on and situations change the need for various things change and shift and thus the reaction to those things also changes and shifts.

In the late 1700/early 1800's the U.S. needed anyone and everyone it could get to come into the country to provide a base grouping of citizenship and to spur it forward then it made sense to be more open with immigration. As time went on and the need for more outside individuals became less and less then the need for more stringent and picky immigration standards was also needed.
 

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
14,043
Reaction score
4,093
Location
Denton, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
You can't abide by the mentality that what was true 200+ years ago can't feasibly be true today? You say no, yet your words keep pointing to you being all in favor of the days of forcing blacks to pick cotton. Since your only argument seems to be "its what it was before".

Previously these people were coming into an area that was relatively lightly populated. When the Europeans and then the Americans conquered the various portions of land and declared it "Theirs" the land was wide open, spread out, and needing to be lived upon. For these conquering people to be able to even put together a society they NEEDED individuals, as many as they could, to choose to come over and be a part of it or else it would've failed. There was a necessity to allowing it to happen as it benefited their goal as a society.

This is not the case today when our cities are over populated, our welfare system is financially strained, our unemployment is rising, our laws cause private industries to take great losses, and there is no longer a over arching large societal need to open and complete flooding of individuals into the country.

If you own an apartment complex you need to have people that want to move in or else you're not going to get any return on your investment. So you start off with great deals and loose regulations. However 20 years later if you're the best apartment complex in town its reasonable to have higher prices, tighter regulations, and a more strenuous application process because now its no longer you needing any and all individuals to make your business work but instead having such a huge demand for your space that you must be more stringent to maintain the high standards you've come to embody.

You probably use to work for $5.00 an hour or something similar. Should you be expected to ALWAYS make that because it was good enough for you at one point so it must always be fine? You once lived with your parents, should you always remain living with your parents because what was good for you at one point will always be best for you? No. As time goes on and situations change the need for various things change and shift and thus the reaction to those things also changes and shifts.

In the late 1700/early 1800's the U.S. needed anyone and everyone it could get to come into the country to provide a base grouping of citizenship and to spur it forward then it made sense to be more open with immigration. As time went on and the need for more outside individuals became less and less then the need for more stringent and picky immigration standards was also needed.
So you think that the Mexicans should pick cotton now? That's basically what they are doing, working very hard in the sun all day for little money.

Sure, we have our problems. We have always had problems. But our problems aren't as bad as our neighbors to the south. We can't deport all of the illegals now can we? It's not possible. So do you think that denying citizenship to a baby is going to fix anything? Absurd. You are mad about all of the illegals in the US, so you feel like you and Sheriff Joe are going to make life more miserable for them so that they will go home. They will never go home until they are too old for hard work.

So take away a child's citizenship chances. It's OK, they're used to being **** on by know-it-all American blow-hards. See you in Church.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom