• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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 immigrants have a path to citizenship?

Should law abiding immigrants be given citizenship?


  • Total voters
    109
Just given citizenship... No.

A path to citizenship.... yes.


.
 
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.
 


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.
 
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.


 
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.'"


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:

 
Last edited:

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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
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.
 

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."
 
Reactions: AJG
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.
 

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

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

I'll leave it to you to take that up with her, if you haven't already.
 
'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.
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.
 
"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 !
 
As a compromise leading to rigorous enforcement of immigration law going forward, yes, I'd be in favor of it.
 
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.