Should immigrants have a path to citizenship?

[Bodi]

Just given citizenship... No.

A path to citizenship.... yes.


.

 

[GIJane]

Yes, as long as they enter the nation in a legal manner OR report to authorities as an illegal and 1) show a legal work history, 2) vetted to show no felony arrests OR convictions in county or in the world, 3) pledge to support OUR Constitution and flag.

Otherwise, no.

 

[tharock220]

That ruling was simply wrong. Today's court will likely rule correctly. The purpose of amending the constitution was to etch the 1866 Civil Rights Act into stone, making it almost impossible to deny blacks citizenship. There was a debate on the topic. The new language was a heated debat, and the text is still debated over today. But passage would not have occurred without the voting congress believing it would not be used as broadly as it is now.

The Citizenship Clause was proposed by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan on May 30, 1866, as an amendment to the joint resolution from the House of Representatives which had framed the initial draft of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The heated debate on the proposed new language in the Senate focused on whether Howard's proposed language would apply more broadly than the wording of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.​

​

Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States." He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons" a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.​

The 1866 civil Rights act did not allow anyone born here automatic citizenship. Again, the purpose was to give former slaves citizenship.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's a single senator. Lyman Trumbull explained that Jus Soli was already being practiced depending on the country of origin of the child's parents.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-citizenship-is-complicated-its-meaning-isn-t

I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.

the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.

Hence the case in your link.

 

[AJG]

Well stated!

Bleeding blue states put out the magnet, promising illegal migrants, (those who have not had legal immigration checks by border patrol aka border jumpers), with freebies like health care. The initiatives vary by state, but here's a few of them, (healthcare, drivers licenses, education, housing, and other protections). Sanctuary city policy was put in place to keep these people there for census counts for the Democratic Party. To keep them there, they put out the welcome wagon, and have to keep giving them the perks. Meanwhile they keep depressing the wages of American low skilled works and those just entering the job market in some labor markets.

The impact of including illegal immigrants in the census has been negligible regarding federal representation and has had no impact on the outcome of presidential elections and party control of the house.

If residents lacking permanent legal status had been excluded from the census numbers used in the apportionment process from 1980 to 2020, no more than two seats in the House of Representatives and three Electoral College votes would have shifted between Democrats and Republicans, according to the study by two demographers from the University of Minnesota and the Center for Migration Studies of New York.

The impact of including people who are in the U.S. illegally has been “negligible,” wrote the researchers.

“This would have had no bearing on party control of the House or the outcome of presidential elections,” they said.

Including people without legal status in census has had little impact on House seats, study finds

Republicans are trying to exclude people who are in the U.S. illegally from the numbers used to portion out congressional seats among the states.

apnews.com

 

[tharock220]

Sounds like a job for the legislature.

What's that?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

That ruling was simply wrong. Today's court will likely rule correctly. The purpose of amending the constitution was to etch the 1866 Civil Rights Act into stone, making it almost impossible to deny blacks citizenship...

You give everyone else on this forum the impression that you arrive at your political conclusions through private study and contemplation. But I immediately recognized your comment on this issue as being a decades' old right-wing talking point. It's an extremist, hardline, anti-immigration legal position that has no basis in our laws or traditions.

Howard was talking specifically about the those "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..."

The exclusionary phrase is specifically tied to those "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers," indicating that Senator Howard was referencing individuals under diplomatic immunity.

He said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

He then immediately introduces an inclusionary phrase, and emphasizes the broad scope of the inclusionary phrase to include everyone else, with the following: "but will include every other class of persons."

This makes clear that the only excluded group are those who, due to diplomatic status, are not fully subject to US jurisdiction,

The concept of Jus Soli, which provides that citizenship is acquired by birth within the territory of the state, was part of our legal heritage, stretching back centuries in English Common Law. Also, the deliberate exclusion of the children of diplomats was also another tradition in English Common Law. Everything Sen. Howard was saying was fully consistent with our legal heritage.

And furthermore:

"Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. During the May 30, 1866, Senate debate over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment, several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners, as Media Matters for America has noted. The debate indicates that they believed the Citizenship Clause would apply to the children of foreigners. For instance, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. And Sen. John Conness of California stated:

'The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.'"

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of "foreigners"?

Right-wing media have claimed that Sen. Jacob Howard, the author of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, said that it would not apply to the children of "foreigners." However, scholars dispute this interpretation of Howard's remarks; and the Supreme Court noted in 1898 that the white...

www.mediamatters.org

In short, they knew exactly what they were doing. They knew the text would extend citizenship the children of foreigners born on U.S. soil, and they kept the phrasing this way because they wanted this to happen. And if they didn't want this to happen, they would have written the amendment to say so.

This is the text of the original debate. You can read it all for yourself:

https://ia801508.us.archive.org/26/items/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment/Debates%20that%20led%20to%20the%20creation%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.pdf

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I don't think the authors even expected there to be an entire industry in China centered on arranging for pregnant women to be able to have their children in the US, but none of the authors of American laws 150 years ago had any clue what things would be like today.

Birth tourism is just a result of those laws. It is what it is, and an executive order isn't really going to change it. If this goes to the Supreme Court I honestly expect no less than a 6-3 decision against Trump, and unanimity by the justices wouldn't surprise me at all.


That's why I want it to be part of any immigration policy.

The law is clear. If immigration hardliners like Lord of Planar want to eliminate birthright citizenship there needs to be an amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Nickyjo]

Well stated!

Bleeding blue states put out the magnet, promising illegal migrants, (those who have not had legal immigration checks by border patrol aka border jumpers), with freebies like health care. The initiatives vary by state, but here's a few of them, (healthcare, drivers licenses, education, housing, and other protections). Sanctuary city policy was put in place to keep these people there for census counts for the Democratic Party. To keep them there, they put out the welcome wagon, and have to keep giving them the perks. Meanwhile they keep depressing the wages of American low skilled works and those just entering the job market in some labor markets.

Sanctions cities have nothing to do with keeping people there for the census. Your paranoia is showing. They were set up to allow illegals to report crimes without fear of deportation.

 

[tharock220]

You give everyone else on this forum the impression that you arrive at your political conclusions through private study and contemplation. But I immediately recognized your comment on this issue as being a decades' old right-wing talking point. It's an extremist, hardline, anti-immigration legal position that has no basis in our laws or traditions.

Howard was talking specifically about the those "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..."

The exclusionary phrase is specifically tied to those "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers," indicating that Senator Howard was referencing individuals under diplomatic immunity.

He said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

He then immediately introduces an inclusionary phrase, and emphasizes the broad scope of the inclusionary phrase to include everyone else, with the following: "but will include every other class of persons."

This makes clear that the only excluded group are those who, due to diplomatic status, are not fully subject to US jurisdiction,

The concept of Jus Soli, which provides that citizenship is acquired by birth within the territory of the state, was part of our legal heritage, stretching back centuries in English Common Law. Also, the deliberate exclusion of the children of diplomats was also another tradition in English Common Law. Everything Sen. Howard was saying was fully consistent with our legal heritage.

And furthermore:

"Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. During the May 30, 1866, Senate debate over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment, several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners, as Media Matters for America has noted. The debate indicates that they believed the Citizenship Clause would apply to the children of foreigners. For instance, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. And Sen. John Conness of California stated:

'The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.'"

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of "foreigners"?

Right-wing media have claimed that Sen. Jacob Howard, the author of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, said that it would not apply to the children of "foreigners." However, scholars dispute this interpretation of Howard's remarks; and the Supreme Court noted in 1898 that the white...

www.mediamatters.org

In short, they knew exactly what they were doing. They knew the text would extend citizenship the children of foreigners born on U.S. soil, and they kept the phrasing this way because they wanted this to happen. And if they didn't want this to happen, they would have written the amendment to say so.

This is the text of the original debate. You can read it all for yourself:

https://ia801508.us.archive.org/26/items/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment/Debates%20that%20led%20to%20the%20creation%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.pdf

Agreed. I'm fairly sure that the authors didn't foresee the issues with immigration we currently have or a birth tourism industry, but I don't see how that changes the law.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Can you imagine a foreign country having hundreds, maybe thousands of children born here, take them back to their native country, teach them infiltration and war tactics, then 20 to 30 years later, attack from within?

We have a population of 340 million people. The idea that a few thousand little baby "invaders" would ever pose a threat is ridiculous.

What's happening with the Chinese with the birth tourism is a reaction to the oppressiveness of the Chinese government. The hope of wealthy Chinese who engage in birth tourism is to one day flee China to the United States if it's ever necessary.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

If they've lived here for years and the only crime they ever committed was crossing the border illegally, are they not law-abiding citizens? To me that's like saying I'm not a law abiding citizen because I stole candy from a convenient store when I was 5, or because I occasionally jaywalk. Maybe the degree of the crime is slightly greater, but if they've followed the rules, acted like a decent person and contributed to society, then it's essentially a victimless crime. There's no sense in saying that person isn't law abiding or denying them a path to citizenship.

The hostility towards illegal immigrants boggles the mind. It is my view that many Trump supporters simply do not view illegal immigrants as human beings. This is demonstrated by people like Captain Adverse who call them "invaders."

 

[rahl]

If they've lived here for years and the only crime they ever committed was crossing the border illegally, are they not law-abiding citizens?

No

To me that's like saying I'm not a law abiding citizen because I stole candy from a convenient store when I was 5, or because I occasionally jaywalk.

No, it’s nothing like that. It would be like someone breaking into your house, but not stealing anything, simply residing in your home.

Maybe the degree of the crime is slightly greater, but if they've followed the rules, acted like a decent person and contributed to society, then it's essentially a victimless crime.

It isn’t. They cut the line and didn’t follow the proper procedure that millions of other legal immigrants have to follow.

There's no sense in saying that person isn't law abiding or denying them a path to citizenship.

Other than the fact they aren’t law abiding and shouldn’t be given citizenship.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Yes, as long as they enter the nation in a legal manner OR report to authorities as an illegal and 1) show a legal work history, 2) vetted to show no felony arrests OR convictions in county or in the world, 3) pledge to support OUR Constitution and flag.

Otherwise, no.

Yes. As long as they have not been convicted of crimes greater than the sitting president.

 

[LostInSeattle]

As you wish:

While Seniors Struggle CA Gov Gavin Newsom Signs $2.8B Bailout Bill to Keep Giving Free Medicaid to Illegals - TFPP Wire

Gavin Newsom signs $2.8B bailout to cover free healthcare for illegal migrants as Medicaid costs explode. GOP calls for audit.

tfppwire.com

Migrants in New York City will receive prepaid debit cards, not credit cards, for designated goods

Missing context. The city is launching a pilot program that will provide migrants with prepaid debit cards to buy only food and baby supplies, according to a spokesperson for the mayor.

apnews.com

Thanks for the links. I appreciate that.

But none of this substantiates your claim that they are coming for these benefits. And those are two state programs, not paid for by federal taxpayers. Also, NY's program provides $12.52 a day per person, for 28 days. It's not a massive subsidy, and it's not open-ended.

FWIW, I'm not for providing health care subsidies for undocumented immigrants at the expense of citizens or documented immigrants. But if the people of NY and CA are willing to foot the bill, it's their money and their business.

 

[LostInSeattle]

As you wish:

While Seniors Struggle CA Gov Gavin Newsom Signs $2.8B Bailout Bill to Keep Giving Free Medicaid to Illegals - TFPP Wire

Gavin Newsom signs $2.8B bailout to cover free healthcare for illegal migrants as Medicaid costs explode. GOP calls for audit.

tfppwire.com

Migrants in New York City will receive prepaid debit cards, not credit cards, for designated goods

Missing context. The city is launching a pilot program that will provide migrants with prepaid debit cards to buy only food and baby supplies, according to a spokesperson for the mayor.

apnews.com

Thanks for the links. I appreciate that.

But none of this substantiates your claim that they are coming for these benefits. And those are two state programs, not paid for by federal taxpayers. Also, NY's program provides $12.52 a day per person, for 28 days. It's not an open-ended program.

FWIW, I'm not for providing health care subsidies for undocumented immigrants at the expense of citizens or documented immigrants. But if the people of NY and CA are willing to foot the bill, it's their money and their business.

 

[Allan]

I never said it does. We already have too many unskilled laborers and it keeps the wages low having an excess.

And suddenly without warning the right was in favour of higher wages for low skilled labour.

Say hello to $6.00 romaine lettuce everyone.

 

[Gaius46]

That full employment is not so full when you look at the facts.

What about the homeless? Those who lost their jobs and cannot regain the dignity, or pass the smell test to work again? they are not counted.

It used to be a single person could buy a house and raise a family, and the wife could be a stay-at-home mom. Now both parents are forced top work and can barely make ends meet. Some people are now working a second part-time job.

This is not proper full employment. If we lost the illegal work force, wages would go up naturally with supply and demand. Employers would compete for employees. Management would force people to be more productive instead of people being paid while using their cell phones for things other than work. We all see it, someone in the isles with a work shit=rt on, on their cell phone instead of working.

Or just as likely people will just hire landscapers less, eat out less or buy fewer strawberries because they aren't worth it at the prices that would need to be charged to support wages that Americans want. That is not going to solve the homeless problem.

And pretty much no one is buying a house on those jobs anyway. That's been the case already for decades. As well we have near full employment with jobs with Americans taking taking same or higher paying jobs already. Making these bottom of the economic barrel jobs available to Americans doesn't do a thing.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yes really.

Everyone eats food. It's not "Democratic" crops but "our" as in "our nation's" crops. I guarantee you many prominent Republicans from farm states thought the same thing, they just didn't say it. So did a whole lot of farmers, many of whom are Republicans.

'Who's going to pick our crops?' is allot like 'Who's going to pick our cotton' after the Civil War came to an end.

It is a serious public policy concern to change certain employment patterns overnight, especially in an inflexible industry like agriculture. Asking about the impacts of such a proposed change is exactly what

Just today I read a post here in the forums where ICE made a large immigration enforcement action, causing a large number of presumably illegal workers walk off the job, and that they were in the midst of a hiring legal US citizens binge. The comment was 'So much for the argument that Americans won't do that work'.

Trix is just throwing out that outdated meme that Democrats are pro-slavery/pro Jim Crow. None of that has been true for 50 years. It was the RNC that was under a federal consent decree from 1982 to 2017 - 35 years - for voter suppression that violated the Civil Rights Act. You want to talk about perpetuating Jim Crow, let's talk about that.

What the height of irony is that the Democrats, Biden in particular, keeps throwing that out against the GOP all the time.

No. Trix's post was most definitely trolling, and it's the kind of thing that creates division and dissension - over nothing - when what we need is less of both, not more. It's the action of a partisan hack who seeks nothing more than to denigrate the other side, and not of someone interested in a real back and forth so both parties can learn. The more I read of her posts, the more this appears to be the case.

I'll leave it to you to take that up with her, if you haven't already.

 

[LostInSeattle]

'Who's going to pick our crops?' is allot like 'Who's going to pick our cotton' after the Civil War came to an end.

In what way? Unless you assume that Democrats are racists, and I already provided evidence that racism resides more these days with the GOP, it's nonsensical. That's why Trix's comment was trolling.

Just today I read a post here in the forums where ICE made a large immigration enforcement action, causing a large number of presumably illegal workers walk off the job, and that they were in the midst of a hiring legal US citizens binge. The comment was 'So much for the argument that Americans won't do that work'.

I have never made that argument. An argument I have made is that we are at 4.2% unemployment, meaning the labor market is already tight. If you don't like inflation, kicking out workers in this circumstance is going to make you unhappy.

What the height of irony is that the Democrats, Biden in particular, keeps throwing that out against the GOP all the time.

If the shoe fits...

I'll leave it to you to take that up with her, if you haven't already.

I have. She knows it's true and so won't engage. But that seems to be par for the course.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

"Immigrants" is not the same as "Illegal Immigrants" !
So your post is lacking.

Immigrants DO have a path !
Illegals ..... Well that's another story.

We've had green cards that allowed workers to come in to the US, that can still go on. We should allow that to
continue. We should Always be able to vet ANYONE coming in to the US to protect Americans !.....

The DEM's hate that !

 

[sKiTzo]

No. Should undocumented (unlicensed) drivers be able to operate motor vehicles on public roadways?

Isn't the OP referring to "legal" immigrants as opposed to "illegal immigrants?"

 

[CLAX1911]

They do, they migrate legally and apply for citizenship.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Isn't the OP referring to "legal" immigrants as opposed to "illegal immigrants?"

Nope. It specifies undocumented meaning illegal.

 

[NatMorton]

Trump has recognized that undocumented immigrants are important for several industries and has backed off arresting and deporting them. I would argue that there are a lot more industries that need these workers to operate effectively.

Those immigrants who haven't committed crimes and are productively employed - should they be allowed to remain and given a path to citizenship?

As a compromise leading to rigorous enforcement of immigration law going forward, yes, I'd be in favor of it.

 

[Allan]

As a compromise leading to rigorous enforcement of immigration law going forward, yes, I'd be in favor of it.

Agree. Compromise is a rare commodity these days isn't it.