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.
The SS is saying that the birth certificate is not valid for their purposes, but the assumption that being born on US soil or to citizen parents grants citizenship is not being challenged.
I know what SS is saying, it's stated in the article; DoS pretty much says the same thing about giving them US Passports. Are the girls not attempting to prove they are US citizens in order to obtain these documents (the girls law suits)? or, is it that there is not enough proof they are US citizens in order to obtain these documents (SS and DoS claims)? Can it not be both?
There isn't even a virtual line or FIFO queue that legal immigrants go through anymore. Referring to it as such is a misnomer. Each case processes individually through the steps, and has its own unique timeline and factors that affect it.
Many things have changed with the times and not just in regards to immigration, so what? We have to adhere to today's policies, not yesterdays.
I know what SS is saying, it's stated in the article; DoS pretty much says the same thing about giving them US Passports. Are the girls not attempting to prove they are US citizens in order to obtain these documents (the girls law suits)? or, is it that there is not enough proof they are US citizens in order to obtain these documents (SS and DoS claims)? Can it not be both?
I don't know what you think I'm dodging, or what you even really think the issue is here.
I know I've said this before but I'll keep saying it.
There is no such thing as an anchor baby.
The law--and yes, although you conservatives may not like it, the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land--provides that, "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."
This means that regardless of your parents' citizenship, if you're born here you're a citizen. The exception is people who are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", i.e. foreign diplomats.
It also means that a state has no authority to adopt a different standard for citizenship, no matter what they may claim.
The birth of a child in the United States has absolutely no effect on the citizenship of the parents, and it does not convey citizenship or the right to remain in the United States on the parents.
In other words, people who are citizens by virtue of their birth in the United States DO NOT anchor their parents to the country.
Hence, there is no such thing as an anchor baby. The use of the term is just a way to inflame the debate by injecting a false premise into the discussion.
I know I've said this before but I'll keep saying it.
There is no such thing as an anchor baby.
The law--and yes, although you conservatives may not like it, the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land--provides that, "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."
This means that regardless of your parents' citizenship, if you're born here you're a citizen. The exception is people who are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", i.e. foreign diplomats.
It also means that a state has no authority to adopt a different standard for citizenship, no matter what they may claim.
The birth of a child in the United States has absolutely no effect on the citizenship of the parents, and it does not convey citizenship or the right to remain in the United States on the parents.
In other words, people who are citizens by virtue of their birth in the United States DO NOT anchor their parents to the country.
Hence, there is no such thing as an anchor baby. The use of the term is just a way to inflame the debate by injecting a false premise into the discussion.
Oh pleeez!! It does and you know it does!! It is used as a tool to sway public opinion in their favor! "Oh the evil government is breaking up those poor Hispanic families!!"
"They are tearing that baby from the arms of it's mother!" Etc...etc......
The process to come here legally may have changed over the years but there still is a legal way to come here so I don't know what your point is.
Yes, and we want to put all those deterrants in place to stop them from coming here illegally are you with us or against us? The deterrants are to change birthright citizenship, remove the job and benefit incentives. Pulling out all the stops to secure our borders, continued internal enforcement and making crossing our border illegally a felony.
My point was to the person I was quoting. How their ancestors got off a boat at Ellis Island and getting stamped, is nothing like today's immigration process -- the two don't and shouldn't compare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum
There isn't even a virtual line or FIFO queue that legal immigrants go through anymore. Referring to it as such is a misnomer. Each case processes individually through the steps, and has its own unique timeline and factors that affect it.
I know I've said this before but I'll keep saying it.
There is no such thing as an anchor baby.
The law--and yes, although you conservatives may not like it, the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land--provides that, "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."
This means that regardless of your parents' citizenship, if you're born here you're a citizen. The exception is people who are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", i.e. foreign diplomats.
It also means that a state has no authority to adopt a different standard for citizenship, no matter what they may claim.
The birth of a child in the United States has absolutely no effect on the citizenship of the parents, and it does not convey citizenship or the right to remain in the United States on the parents.
In other words, people who are citizens by virtue of their birth in the United States DO NOT anchor their parents to the country.
Hence, there is no such thing as an anchor baby. The use of the term is just a way to inflame the debate by injecting a false premise into the discussion.
We all know what the current intepretation (although wrongly interpreted) of birthright citizenship is, that isn't the issue. The issue is getting it re-interpreted by the Supreme Court and if necessary making an amendment to it so that at least one parent has to be a citizen in order for their newborn to qualify for instant citizenship.
As for the term anchor baby, the parents "think" they will be granted stay here at some time in the future because they have a U.S. citizen baby. It also anchors them unto our welfare system for the same reason.
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.
