Should we change the requirements for who is a citizen?

[ttwtt78640]

Nope. To much (any) potential for the states to remove the equal protection clause.

How is it equal for you to either wait years (decades?) in your country of origin for legal US immigration status or having an "anchor baby" which allows special status to remain in the US if you simply "slipped in" illegally?

How, exactly, does having that newborn being a US citizen convey any special immigration status to the still illegal parent(s)?

 

[trollarc]

How is it equal for you to either wait years (decades?) in your country of origin for legal US immigration status or having an "anchor baby" which allows special status to remain in the US if you simply "slipped in" illegally?

How, exactly, does having that newborn being a US citizen convey any special immigration status to the still illegal parent(s)?

I was referring to the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. I was stating that the amendment should not be changed because as soon as you start to change it the equal protection clause can potentially be removed. Your discussion is irrelevant to that.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I was referring to the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. I was stating that the amendment should not be changed because as soon as you start to change it the equal protection clause can potentially be removed. Your discussion is irrelevant to that.

I never suggested removing or repealing the entire 14A. Just as wih the 19A, for example, an amendment may address a single issue without an effect on any other part of the constitution.

 

[radcen]

One thing that stimulates illegals coming into our country is the fact that they can come here, have a baby, and the baby is a US citizen because it was born here. What if we had a rule that stated that just being born here isn't enough to guarantee citizenship unless at least one of the parents was a US citizen? Maybe that would cut the flow of some of these illegals.

For several years now I have advocated this type of change. At least one biological parents must already be a US citizen, can be either mother or father. Only one needs to be, not both. And how they gained their citizenship is not important, just that they are a citizen at the time of their kid's birth.

I do not see this as unfair at all, and it would be a huge step in simplifying things.

Some say the numbers of so-called "anchor babies" is so small as to be insignificant. Ok, you believe that, let the rest of have our way. Humor us, since it doesn't matter anyway, right?

 

[radcen]

"We are a nation of immigrants"

To a point. Contrary to popular thought, even in the heyday of Ellis Island we have never had a 100% open immigration policy. We actually rejected and sent back many people who did not fit desirable criteria, i.e. criminals, diseased, etc.

 

[trollarc]

"We are a nation of immigrants"

To a point. Contrary to popular thought, even in the heyday of Ellis Island we have never had a 100% open immigration policy. We actually rejected and sent back many people who did not fit desirable criteria, i.e. criminals, diseased, etc.

Every human in North and South America is the descendant of an immigrant. Humans aren't indigenous here.

 

[radcen]

Every human in North and South America is the descendant of an immigrant. Humans aren't indigenous here.

I've heard this before. You obviously buy into the notion that this is some sort of salient point. Could you please elaborate and tell us why this is important, or even relevant, in today's world?

Thank you.

 

[Moderate Right]

Every human in North and South America is the descendant of an immigrant. Humans aren't indigenous here.

I'll listen to arguments but this one is ridiculous. You can make that same argument about just about any place on earth if you go back to the caveman days. We're talking about the US here and citizenship or not. That means anything that happened before 1776 is irrelevant.

 

[pinqy]

Babies born in the US should take the citizenship of their birth mother. .

Then I would not have been a citizen of anywhere. My mother was a British citizen at the time of my birth in the United States, but by British law, children too the citizenship of their father, so I was not eligible for British citizenship since my father is American. But now you'd say I wasn't eligible for U.S. citizenship either, so I would have been a stateless individual.

 

[trollarc]

That would appear to require constitutional amendment or at least legally (re?)defining under the jurisdiction thereof to exclude illegal aliens.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which included but, unfortunately, was not limited to former slaves recently freed.

First section of the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution: 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.

The amendment clearly states All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No change that doesn't alter the fourteenth amendment will change that. Changing the first section of the fourteenth amendment is a bad idea because of the potential to strip the equal protection clause.

 

[radcen]

Then I would not have been a citizen of anywhere. My mother was a British citizen at the time of my birth in the United States, but by British law, children too the citizenship of their father, so I was not eligible for British citizenship since my father is American. But now you'd say I wasn't eligible for U.S. citizenship either, so I would have been a stateless individual.

That's why I would include the father as a qualifying citizen parent. I don't get why some want to restrict it to mothers only, especially since we now have the technology to know for sure, unless some are still stuck in the old-school mindset that only mothers are parents. :shrug:

ETA: I would require that fathers prove paternity, via DNA or whatever, and we don't just depend on the word of the father and/or mother.

 

[pinqy]

One thing that stimulates illegals coming into our country is the fact that they can come here, have a baby, and the baby is a US citizen because it was born here.

True, but that does NOT give the parents the right to stay in the U.S. nor does it guarantee the child that right until the age of 16. An illegal immigrant mother with a child born in the U.S. can be deported with her child. Once the child is 18 s/he can legally move to the U.S. and then sponser his/her parents.

 

[trollarc]

I've heard this before. You obviously buy into the notion that this is some sort of salient point. Could you please elaborate and tell us why this is important, or even relevant, in this discussion?

Thank you.

You said there is a point to which the United States is a nation of immigrants.
I was clarifying that the point you are referring to is every man, woman, and child.

"We are a nation of immigrants"

To a point. Contrary to popular thought, even in the heyday of Ellis Island we have never had a 100% open immigration policy. We actually rejected and sent back many people who did not fit desirable criteria, i.e. criminals, diseased, etc.

We still don't have a 100% open immigration policy.
You obviously buy into the notion that this is some sort of salient point. Could you please elaborate and tell us why this is important, or even relevant, in today's world?

 

[radcen]

True, but that does NOT give the parents the right to stay in the U.S. nor does it guarantee the child that right until the age of 16. An illegal immigrant mother with a child born in the U.S. can be deported with her child. Once the child is 18 s/he can legally move to the U.S. and then sponser his/her parents.

Yes, but... it gives an emotional argument that often works in their favor to allow them to stay. Taking away birthright citizenship would take away the emotional argument. Then, maybe, we could enforce the law again. At least some.

 

[pinqy]

Yes, but... it gives an emotional argument that often works in their favor to allow them to stay. Taking away birthright citizenship would take away the emotional argument. Then, maybe, we could enforce the law again. At least some.

I'm sorry, you'll have to support that claim that judges take into account that emotional argument.

 

[trollarc]

Yes, but... it gives an emotional argument that often works in their favor to allow them to stay. Taking away birthright citizenship would take away the emotional argument. Then, maybe, we could enforce the law again. At least some.

So editing the fourteenth amendment is a good idea?
I disagree.

 

[radcen]

You said there is a point to which the United States is a nation of immigrants.
I was clarifying that the point you are referring to is every man woman and child.

We still don't have a 100% open immigration policy. You obviously buy into the notion that this is some sort of salient point. Could you please elaborate and tell us why this is important, or even relevant, in today's world?

Ah, I see. You're one of those people who doesn't answer requests for clarification, then turns around and tries to do the same thing in reverse in a clearly transparent manner. Basically, you're not interested in discussion, you're just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. Noted.

 

[Moderate Right]

True, but that does NOT give the parents the right to stay in the U.S. nor does it guarantee the child that right until the age of 16. An illegal immigrant mother with a child born in the U.S. can be deported with her child. Once the child is 18 s/he can legally move to the U.S. and then sponser his/her parents.

Has anyone shared that tidbit of information with Obama or others on the left?

 

[jonny5]

We are not a nation of immigrants. I was born here, so were my parents and grandparents. 90% of all citizens are natural born.

 

[trollarc]

Ah, I see. You're one of those people who doesn't answer requests for clarification, then turns around and tries to do the same thing in reverse in a clearly transparent manner. Basically, you're not interested in discussion, you're just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. Noted.

I was clarifying your position.
Your position requires reality.

I edited the post. I meant to ask how your statements were applicable to this discussion.
We are discussing persons BORN in the United States, not persons born in another country.

Being transparent is a good thing. Honest people and reality are transparent.
Dishonest people aren't transparent. People living in a fantasy world aren't transparent.

 

[jonny5]

One thing that stimulates illegals coming into our country is the fact that they can come here, have a baby, and the baby is a US citizen because it was born here. What if we had a rule that stated that just being born here isn't enough to guarantee citizenship unless at least one of the parents was a US citizen? Maybe that would cut the flow of some of these illegals.

Even if it doesnt, it should still be done. Citizenship should have nothing to do with geography of birth. And in fact, its already defined this way in the federal code. If a parent is a citizen, YOU are a natural born citizen. That part of the 14th amendment should be repealed.

 

[trollarc]

I'll listen to arguments but this one is ridiculous. You can make that same argument about just about any place on earth if you go back to the caveman days. We're talking about the US here and citizenship or not. That means anything that happened before 1776 is irrelevant.

I was clarifying his position, not disagreeing with his point. The point is that the first sentence of his statement is completely true but we have controlled immigration since being an independent nation.
On reflection, his point is entirely irrelevant to persons born in the United States.

 

[radcen]

I'm sorry, you'll have to support that claim that judges take into account that emotional argument.

Are you really so out-of-touch with the world around you that you can't have a rational discussion without demanding citations of open and known procedures?

Anyway, it's called Prosecutorial Discretion, and it exists, and it does happen, though if you read the ins-and-outs you will notice that it is applied unevenly and is often based on emotional-type criteria.

Many news stories that claim it (the concept) to be a myth often lie-by-omission, their own form of attempting to influence public opinion by using emotional arguments against the big bad evil uncaring government being big meanies to the poor innocent children. They will cover their butts by whipping in words such as "usually" and "rare", so they can claim fairness if called on it, but they never come right out and say that people do indeed get exemptions granted.

Here's a couple helpful links...

Will having U.S. citizenship children prevent deportation of undocumented immigrant? - Nolo.com

Which Undocumented Persons Are Helped By Prosecutorial Discretion | Nolo.com

 

[pinqy]

Has anyone shared that tidbit of information with Obama or others on the left?

Everyone in ICE knows it. Can you show any examples of any judge ruling that the foreign parent of a U.S. citizen minor is entitled to stay in the U.S.?

 

[trollarc]

Are you really so out-of-touch with the world around you that you can't have a rational discussion without demanding citations of open and known procedures?

Anyway, it's called Prosecutorial Discretion, and it exists, and it does happen, though if you read the ins-and-outs you will notice that it is applied unevenly and is often based on emotional-type criteria.

Many news stories that claim it (the concept) to be a myth often lie-by-omission, their own form of attempting to influence public opinion by using emotional arguments against the big bad evil uncaring government being big meanies to the poor innocent children. They will cover their butts by whipping in words such as "usually" and "rare", so they can claim fairness if called on it, but they never come right out and say that people do indeed get exemptions granted.

Here's a couple helpful links...

Will having U.S. citizenship children prevent deportation of undocumented immigrant? - Nolo.com

Which Undocumented Persons Are Helped By Prosecutorial Discretion | Nolo.com

Are you really so out of touch with the needs of people that you'd honestly prefer infants to have no citizenship at all? If they are born in the United States they potentially do not have any claim to citizenship elsewhere.