U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2011, 11:04 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 16,207,047 times
Reputation: 4611

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
1d) & 1f): Say the mother takes the child back to the home country (remember the case of a year or so back?), does the father have any rights if the child is not a U.S. citizen?...
Is this "The Quiz Show"?

 
Old 06-19-2011, 12:01 AM
 
Location: Moderate conservative for Obama.
833 posts, read 528,106 times
Reputation: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyanna View Post
There is nothing offensive about birthright citizenship, under certain conditions. If someone is born to natural born American parents, they, of course, hold birthright citizenship. If someone is born to parents who are LEGAL immigrants here, then they, too, are entitled to birthright citizenship. However, if a woman has deliberately entered this country ILLEGALLY for the sole purpose of giving birth to her child on American soil, THAT is offensive, sneaky and deceitful. This mother has not established citizenship LEGALLY in this country, and therefore, her child should not be granted citizenship.

I can agree with that , However. I would like to take it a step further, women who come here under a tourist visa and gives birth like what the chinese are doing will not be allowed citizenship to their offspring.
 
Old 06-19-2011, 02:56 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
2,075 posts, read 1,774,015 times
Reputation: 946

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkfarnam View Post
Is this "The Quiz Show"?
ROLMAO I agree 100%. It must be the sequel to
"Are you smarter than a 5th grader".
 
Old 06-19-2011, 06:27 AM
 
914 posts, read 1,130,634 times
Reputation: 450
I will be supporting it .
 
Old 06-19-2011, 07:19 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,149,569 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
1b) & 1c): Does the child retain the status gained at birth? Be aware an LPR can lose status by being outside the United States for a period over a year without permission. This may be more important when we talk about LPR parents (the "#2" categories) later.

1d): Can even be a case where the mother has a K-3 visa (spouse of a U.S. citizen). Would the child then be under an implied K-4 (a K-3 visa can be renewed, and doesn't require to go to LPR status). If the mother goes to LPR status (and later to citizenship), does the child get derivative status if a minor? What happens if the child attains the age of majority without the mother having nothing further than non-immigrant status?

1f): The child is out of immigration status too, unless the father petitions for it?...
As I suggested before, why don't you look into how other countries who require that at least one parent be a citizen in order for their newborn to qualify for instant citizenship, handle these individual instances?
 
Old 06-19-2011, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,011,547 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone-Ranger View Post
...I would like to take it a step further, women who come here under a tourist visa and gives birth like what the chinese are doing will not be allowed citizenship to their offspring.
How about the case where it is a legitimate marriage to the mother by a U.S. citizen father, and it is his child as well? I ask these questions to see if the offered plan is thought out at least through the basics. There are not often court precedence on even the cases we have now, and I am not going to rely on the opinion of foreign courts.

Involved situations were citizenship is chosen by the parents or child are not going to work. Statuses based on parental gender is also messy, and would have instant challenges. Birth within the United States is all I am concerned with here, and relates specifically to the topic.
 
Old 06-19-2011, 08:39 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,149,569 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
How about the case where it is a legitimate marriage to the mother by a U.S. citizen father, and it is his child as well? I ask these questions to see if the offered plan is thought out at least through the basics. There are not often court precedence on even the cases we have now, and I am not going to rely on the opinion of foreign courts.

Involved situations were citizenship is chosen by the parents or child are not going to work. Statuses based on parental gender is also messy, and would have instant challenges. Birth within the United States is all I am concerned with here, and relates specifically to the topic.
So you think that foreign countries before implementing theirs were to stupid to hammer out the details?

It's very simple, really. All you have to do is acknowledge that, with few exceptions, every developed nation today rejects citizenship based soley upon birthright. You try to make it seem as though without birthright citizenship there will be so much confusion and "stateless" people that we won't be able to limp along! Ridiculous! Seriously, other nations seem to have solved this problem very easily. IMO you are intentionally making it more complicated because you can't stand the thought that it would put the breaks on the Latino reconquista!

In the case of Mexican anchor babies, Mexico allows them to claim Mexican citizenship anyhow, so they are anything but "stateless!" They speak Spanish, they are immersed in Mexican culture, are citizens of Mexico, and they can easily return home with their parents. I don't see that fact pointed out enough; most people forget that they are also conferred Mexican citizenship and are just as much citizens of Mexico as they are of the U.S. I would argue they are more citizens of Mexico than the U.S. (due to abuse of the 14th). It's so darned annoying!

Without birthright citizenship, a powerful incentive for coming here would be removed. They would no longer be able to avail themselves of generous welfare benefits in the name of their anchor babies. You hear the pro-illegals constantly crowing about how these kids are "citizens" and deserve the benefits like any other citizen. This is their achilles heel and they know it! It would be much more difficult for them to remain here, having these ridiculously large families that they cannot support, without being able to tap into our social services. It would be like the immigration of 100 years ago or more: they'd either have to be able to support themselves and their families, or return to their native lands. No more mooching off the taxpayer. That would bring this invasion to a screeching halt and they know it. That's why they fight so hard against changing it and act as though birthright citizenship is carved in stone, never able to be changed! It's just absurd, but they know what is at stake. In fact, I'd say that taking care of this abuse of the 14th amendment is more critical in the long run than whether we grant some kind of amnesty right now. Even without an amnesty, as long as this abuse of the 14th is allowed to continue, they win by default.
 
Old 06-19-2011, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,011,547 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
...In the case of Mexican anchor babies, Mexico allows them to claim Mexican citizenship anyhow, so they are anything but "stateless!" They speak Spanish, they are immersed in Mexican culture, are citizens of Mexico, and they can easily return home with their parents. I don't see that fact pointed out enough; most people forget that they are also conferred Mexican citizenship and are just as much citizens of Mexico as they are of the U.S. I would argue they are more citizens of Mexico than the U.S. (due to abuse of the 14th). It's so darned annoying!...
What is annoying is knowing I've corrected you specifically on this detail, and you bring it up again. Citizens of Mexico can apply for their children born outside Mexico to gain Mexican nationality. It does not confer Mexican citizenship, you acknowledged this before, but you are still willfully misrepresenting it.

I'm willing to concede to a position that someone wouldn't be a citizen at birth unless at least one parent (either gender) were a citizen. Legal Permanent Resident status would also be conferred to their children, with derivative citizenship if a parent naturalizes while the child is a minor. It ultimately involves marking birth certificates and tracking details by a state databases, but is much more simpler to implement, and more defined against court challenges.
 
Old 06-19-2011, 10:38 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,131 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
What is annoying is knowing I've corrected you specifically on this detail, and you bring it up again. Citizens of Mexico can apply for their children born outside Mexico to gain Mexican nationality. It does not confer Mexican citizenship, you acknowledged this before, but you are still willfully misrepresenting it.

I'm willing to concede to a position that someone wouldn't be a citizen at birth unless at least one parent (either gender) were a citizen. Legal Permanent Resident status would also be conferred to their children, with derivative citizenship if a parent naturalizes while the child is a minor. It ultimately involves marking birth certificates and tracking details by a state databases, but is much more simpler to implement, and more defined against court challenges.
So, in essence, our back in forth is nothing more than your attempt at crafting Citizenship Policy. The Birth Certificate involvement is what I have described in the beginning, as it is the States that issue the certificate (the 14th Amendment is directed at the State, not at people).
 
Old 06-19-2011, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,011,547 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
So, in essence, our back in forth is nothing more than your attempt at crafting Citizenship Policy. The Birth Certificate involvement is what I have described in the beginning, as it is the States that issue the certificate (the 14th Amendment is directed at the State, not at people).
Why can't I have my fun too? We have to gain a workable policy, parental genders and choosing citizenship upon majority is just too convoluted. Despite the recent case of Jus Sanguinis failing to be addressed, it did raise some valid points about parental gender disparity in births outside the United States.

If we were really proactive, going to something like earned citizenship, Starship Troopers style, would be interesting..

The term "Birthright Citizenship" doesn't really distinguish between Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis, it can mean both...
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top