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.
a mountain out of a mole hill? you are talking about changing an amendment. the mole hills are always the 'sticking" point so they need to be ironed out for sure. you can't just put on rose colored glasses and say "I'm sure it will work out"
I was making a rhetorical statement about the poem on the statue nothing more.
Yes, you are making a mountain out of a molehill and my guess would be that you don't want birthright citizenship changed because of your personal views.
I just don't understand why you and other pro-illegals have to make the birthright citizenship issue sooo hard!
It just seems as though they throw up innumerable roadblocks to what should be relatively simple.
Here's the bottom line: children born to someone who is here illegally, either by overstaying a visa or by illegal entry, should NOT be considered automatic U.S. citizens.
Everything after that can be worked out; we are not incompetent, stupid people (although I can't say as much for some of our politicians!). IOW, I think it would be possible for children of legal immigrants who are in the process of becoming U.S. citizens to have U.S. citizenship conferred upon them. At the very least, they could be given provisional citizenship until their parents gain their own U.S. citizenship. Whatever. The problem does not lie with legal permanent residents who have gone through the proper procedures to immigrate, it lies with illegals sneaking in here knowing that any children they have will gain automatic citizenship and that they will benefit from this.
There are only two classes of people who should be automatically excluded from birthright citizenship off the bat: 1) the children of illegals, and 2) children of tourists who just happen to be here when they give birth. There is no reason on the face of God's green earth why those children should not receive the citizenship of their own parents!
All other scenarios can be hashed out. It seems as though the pro-illegals want to throw up every single wild-a** scenario (what about this, what about that) to prevent taking care of the two largest offending groups.
Legal immigrants having children here who have not yet received their own citizenship (or perhaps not even applied yet) are NOT the bulk of the problem in this nation! We don't have to address every single niggling possible scenario before we address birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens and tourists! We can address those groups FIRST and then move to the others (who, like I said, are not the offensive parties).
Looks like White House and Homeland Security has announced new policy today regarding illegal immigrants so that they can concentrate on people with serious criminal records and let others to be released from custody http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-com...etion-memo.pdf
This isn't new. They have been letting illegal aliens go without a felony and even giving some of them work permits for some time now. Sorry, but I disagree with this policy. All illegals need to go home whether they have a felony conviction or not.
This isn't new. They have been letting illegal aliens go without a felony and even giving some of them work permits for some time now. Sorry, but I disagree with this policy. All illegals need to go home whether they have a felony conviction or not.
And how do you feel about that? Sounds like back door amnesty to me. I guess Obama isn't going to allow congress to make decisions on illegal immigation. How do you feel about that?
you might as well change the wording on the statue of liberty too. people come here and always will legal or not. our courts have ruled time and again if you are on our soil you are under the protection of the USC
however if you were able to mess with the 14th amendment what would happen to babies born while their parents are in the process of becoming citizens? that can't happen over night, so what would the status be of these "limbo" babies born before their mother became a us citizen?
The wording in the Statue of liberty (as it is in the pedestal beneath the statue) was added a number of years after the erection of the statue; the Statue has nothing to do with immigrants.
The courts have ruled they are subject to civil and criminal laws, just like everybody else. They are only protected under the EPC of the 14th and the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment. They get 6th Amendment protections if they are charged with an infamous crime. Other than those few protections they are not covered by our USC.
As for the BRC (Birthright Citizenship) why is it that Bouve (Plyler vs Doe footnote 10) was arguing (in 1912) that children born to illegals should be granted BRC due to being domiciled here, and in so forth the parents are "temporarily pledging allegiance" even without the US accepting it, since allegiance is required to obtain citizenship and can be passed down from parent to child? If Wong Kim Ark was the defining of BRC, I would think Bouve would be pointing that out vs arguing for BRC for illegal aliens children born here. Even Brennan in Plyler states that those here in violation of immigration laws are/have committed a crime simply by being here and are subject to deportation (as their is no age limit for deportations).
There is no need to amend the 14th Amendment, we only need a consenualist in the DoS and the WH. SCOTUS could rule on it as well or Congress could simply define it through an INA. Besides simply receiving a birth certificate does not grant one BRC. It merely begins an identity for that person, nothing more.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 08-18-2011 at 04:46 PM..
It will be next to impossible for a Constitutional Amendment to pass
Neither US Congress or the House has more than 2/3rd members who are in support of Constitutional Amendment and there is no way it will be passed in the liberal states in North East or California where it would need 3/4 majority of US States to get it ratified
There is no need for a Constitutional Amendment for BRC, Congress only needs to define BRC with an INA, SCOTUS can have a case of BRC denial and rule on it, or a consenualist can become the Secretary of DoS.
I would like you to cite the case that gives BRC to illegal aliens, I have already shown that Wong Kim Ark does not and that Plyler does not, that doesn't leave you with very many (any) cases left.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 08-18-2011 at 04:46 PM..
Yes, you are making a mountain out of a molehill and my guess would be that you don't want birthright citizenship changed because of your personal views.
sorry the law is not a mole hill period. there are huge obstacles in amending the USC. people gave pelosi a hard time when she made the gaff about not knowing what was in the heath care bill until we signed it. well unless you know what the amended law will say precisely, how it will be applied and if it is just for ALL people under the protection of the USC. this is why people have jobs as lawyers. this stuff is important.
my personal views as far as birth right are not set in concrete and I can see the point in wanting to change the situation. which doesn't mean you can ignore the little things.
I just don't understand why you and other pro-illegals have to make the birthright citizenship issue sooo hard!
I object that you always assume I am pro illegal because I support the rights of everyone on american soil. as to why people drag their feet and make it "hard" to end birth right citizenship, lies within the wording of the 14th amendment.
"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 any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
once you start chipping away at it with birth right you then put at risk the other things mentioned, like due process and equal protection.
It just seems as though they throw up innumerable roadblocks to what should be relatively simple.
it is far from simple when you take the whole of the amendment. we can't be half in on an amendment. taking birth right out means the rest is also up for grabs and no one wants that.
Here's the bottom line: children born to someone who is here illegally, either by overstaying a visa or by illegal entry, should NOT be considered automatic U.S. citizens.
maybe not but for now that how it is.
Everything after that can be worked out; we are not incompetent, stupid people (although I can't say as much for some of our politicians!). in politics no, we can't always work things out. then whe we do settle on something, the moment it is law the other side changes it when they get in better control.
IOW, I think it would be possible for children of legal immigrants who are in the process of becoming U.S. citizens to have U.S. citizenship conferred upon them. At the very least, they could be given provisional citizenship until their parents gain their own U.S. citizenship. Whatever. The problem does not lie with legal permanent residents who have gone through the proper procedures to immigrate, it lies with illegals sneaking in here knowing that any children they have will gain automatic citizenship and that they will benefit from this.
There are only two classes of people who should be automatically excluded from birthright citizenship off the bat: 1) the children of illegals, and 2) children of tourists who just happen to be here when they give birth. There is no reason on the face of God's green earth why those children should not receive the citizenship of their own parents!
until ending birth right citizenship is on the front burner for most of america they will continue to become us citizens. not sure how you can "close" that loophole with out the house falling in on itself.
All other scenarios can be hashed out. It seems as though the pro-illegals want to throw up every single wild-a** scenario (what about this, what about that) to prevent taking care of the two largest offending groups.
again it isn't so much about being pro illegal it is more about the protection people enjoy when they are on american soil. these are every ones not just for americans.
no one should be denied due process even if have have broken the law.
Legal immigrants having children here who have not yet received their own citizenship (or perhaps not even applied yet) are NOT the bulk of the problem in this nation! We don't have to address every single niggling possible scenario before we address birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens and tourists! We can address those groups FIRST and then move to the others (who, like I said, are not the offensive parties).
far easier task had it not been written as it was. we can't cut off our nose to spite out face. every supreme court since the 1880's has said as much
far easier task had it not been written as it was. we can't cut off our nose to spite out face. every supreme court since the 1880's has said as much
The way it was written wasn't intended to include newborns of illegal aiens as instant citizens it just has been mis-interpreted. Numerous people in here have clarified that and in particular "Liquid Reigns".
Other countries use to extend birthright citizenship to all born on their soil and have since changed it to at least one parent being a citizen as the qualifier so yes you are making a mountian out of molehill. Less than 20 countries grant birthright citizenship to anyone born on their soil and there are 194 countries on our planet.
So now you want to divert the argument to changing other things? Let's take each situation as it arises and stop the "what ifs".
This has nothing to do with denying anyone's rights. What is so terrible about being made a citizen of your parents homeland if they themselves aren't U.S. citizens?
Last edited by chicagonut; 08-18-2011 at 06:21 PM..
Reason: spelling
They way it was written wasn't intended to include newborns of illegal aiens as instant citizens it just has been mis-interpreted. Numerous people in here have clarified that and in particular "Liquid Reigns".
Other countries use to extend birthright citizenship to all born on their soil and have since changed it to at least one parent being a citizen as the qualifier so yes you are making a mountian out of molehill. Less than 20 countries grant birthright citizenship to anyone born on their soil and there are 194 countries on our planet.
So now you want to divert the argument to changing other things? Let's take each situation as it arises and stop the "what ifs".
This has nothing to do with denying anyone's rights. What is so terrible about being made a citizen of your parents homeland if they themselves aren't U.S. citizens?
I should take the opinion of "numerous people in here who clarified particular 'liquid reigns"? lol the way it was intended, is the way the courts have backed it up time and time again. I prefer the collective minds of hundreds of USSCJ to liguid reins there is no easy button.
as for other countries, I could give a rip what they do.
unsure of what comment of mine you mean thinking I am diverting. so I can't comment. there is nothing wrong with taking the citizenship of the parents homeland. I think like you we can work some of this stuff out but the big sticking point is too divisive.
sorry again, but when you try to chip away parts of the 14th amendment, you are chipping away at all our rights. like it or not it means one and all period, which was the point and how it was meant.
I wouldn't want anyone chipping at the right to bear arms either. I don't own or shoot guns so for me a completely a non issue. however I do understand any action attempting to amend this right, puts our rights in jeopardy.
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.
I should take the opinion of "numerous people in here who clarified particular 'liquid reigns"? lol the way it was intended, is the way the courts have backed it up time and time again. I prefer the collective minds of hundreds of USSCJ to liguid reins 
