Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, you could read that resolution as saying that if both parents are citizens of the United States, then the person born in the United States is not a citizen.
If you're not a citizen unless one parent is a citizen, that would seem to imply that you're not a citizen if two parents are citizens.
As for the proposed Amendment, I have a hard time getting too worked up with reinterpreting "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude people in the US illegally. It would be a revision of centuries of precedent that limits that language to children of invading armies or diplomats, but I think you could plausibly say that people here illegally are only subject to deportation, and no other jurisdiction of the US, unless they violate some other criminal law.
All they need to do is make it simple.
Too much wording leaves room for debate and loopholes.
That's good to know. There is a legal doctrine from the US Supreme Court that one cannot benefit from an illegal activity, regardless of what that illegal activity is.
That would certainly apply here, in that one cannot commit several felonies in order to have a child that would have US citizenship.
That's good to know. There is a legal doctrine from the US Supreme Court that one cannot benefit from an illegal activity, regardless of what that illegal activity is.
You also cannot punish children for the crimes of their parents. The legal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment has been clear for a century; that anybody except for the children of foreign diplomats or invading armies born on US soil are citizens. It's not a question of whether it's good or bad, it is that reversing that interpretation will require a new Supreme Court holding or a constitutional amendment.
You also cannot punish children for the crimes of their parents. The legal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment has been clear for a century; that anybody except for the children of foreign diplomats or invading armies born on US soil are citizens. It's not a question of whether it's good or bad, it is that reversing that interpretation will require a new Supreme Court holding or a constitutional amendment.
It's more appropriate to say "rewarding the children for the crimes of their parents".
I don't know which of Obama's carnival employees is responsible for listening to the people on this one.
Maybe Eric Holder.
But, I can assure you that whoever it is .... they don't give a damn what the American people think.
Bingo, your a winner! you can say that over and over again, The dems don't give a damn about this issue, you can hear it in their speeches when they talk about our immigration issues. This Country is going to go to hell, if those people we have in power, refuse to do anything about this issue.
It's more appropriate to say "rewarding the children for the crimes of their parents".
Fine, word it that way if it makes you feel better. The interpretation of the 14th Amendment is still unmistakably clear, and you will still need a new Supreme Court ruling to reverse that, or a constitutional amendment.
Bingo, your a winner! you can say that over and over again, The dems don't give a damn about this issue, you can hear it in their speeches when they talk about our immigration issues. This Country is going to go to hell, if those people we have in power, refuse to do anything about this issue.
And it is happening!
Sorry to burst your bubble but when the Repubs had Congress and the Whitehouse they didn't stop it either so your statement is nothing more than mis-information and finger pointing. Heck Dubya wanted to give the illegals Amnesty and one of the big supporters of NAFTA. FYI, I am slightly left of center and agree that anchor babies, meaning children born to illegals in the US should not automatically recieve citizenship but I am not sure the wording of the bill is clear enough.
Casper
I do support a law that says a child born should take the citizenship of their parent's country. If a child has at least one parent who is a US citizen, then they should be conferred US citizenship. The policy of granting citizenship for all born on US soil was granted to prevent disenfranchisment of freed slaves but in this day and age, it makes more sense to have a policy where citizenship is inherited based on parental lineage. I understand this idea would be an uphill battle. Overturning a constitutional amendment is always hard, but in this day of airplane travel, it makes more sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you can say that over and over again, The dems don't give a damn about this issue, 
you can hear it in their speeches when they talk about our immigration issues. This Country is going to go to hell,
if those people we have in power, refuse to do anything about this issue.
