U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-16-2011, 06:52 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,714,336 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
Citizenship occurs at birth and has no connection to how that birth was orchestrated.
No it does not. A birth certificate has neither the status of the parent nor that of the child. A birth certificate is nothing more then a mere beginning of an identity. Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor: Birth within the dominions of a sovereign is not always sufficient to create citizenship if the party at the time does not derive protection from its Page 28 U. S. 156 sovereign in virtue of his actual possession. Meaning allegiance musty be obtained by the parent and passed down to the child at birth in order to be considered natural-born citizen, without this allegiance the child is not born a natural-born citizen. Look to footnote 10 in Plyler, Bouvé, Clement Lincoln (Of the Districf of Columbia Bar; Member of the American Society of International Law). A treatise on the laws governing the exclusion and expulsion of aliens in the United States. Washington, D.C. : John Byrne & Co., 1912. In which Bouve is making an argument allowing "domicile" to be the criteria of birthright citizenship and due to this, by virtue of residing here without the consent of our government, they have shown "temporary allegiance". So, NO, Wong Kim Ark doesn't grant birth right citizenship unless the parents are here with the consent of our Government.
Quote:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes....Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 118 U.S. 356; Law Ow Bew v. United States 144 U.S. 47, 61, 62; Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), 149 U.S. 698, 724; Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1893), 158 U.S. 538, 547; Wong Wing v. United States (1896), 163 U.S. 228, 238.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-16-2011, 06:55 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,772,681 times
Reputation: 22171
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
Citizenship occurs at birth and has no connection to how that birth was orchestrated.

Actually no. There are only a limited number of heads left in the appropriate Mexican demographic. So we can't screw up too bad. There are other groups that might try it but they lack the convenient access to a border. And the Mexicans make it pretty difficult for others to get at the border they used.

Then again of course with the alternative presently adopted they all end up here anyway....so why not try anyway?
No there aren't. Over half of Mexican girls living in the USA have at least one baby before they reach age 20, many have 3 or 4 by that age. That kind of irresponsible breeding isn't going to end once they find they will be given food stamps, WIC, free health care and citizenship as their reward for having babies. It's their culture, they had children they couldn't feed back home, and with American style welfare programs, they'll certainly keep having them.

The population of newly arrived families is growing at tremendously high rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 07:25 PM
 
Location: NW Las Vegas - Lone Mountain
15,756 posts, read 32,524,913 times
Reputation: 2661
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
No there aren't. Over half of Mexican girls living in the USA have at least one baby before they reach age 20, many have 3 or 4 by that age. That kind of irresponsible breeding isn't going to end once they find they will be given food stamps, WIC, free health care and citizenship as their reward for having babies. It's their culture, they had children they couldn't feed back home, and with American style welfare programs, they'll certainly keep having them.

The population of newly arrived families is growing at tremendously high rates.
Nonsense. The ferility rate goes down as they become assimilated. Happens every time.

And the fertility rate in Mexico is rapidly approaching that of the US. And note that the US could use a little increase in fertility. Need someone to pay when the present young generation gets to my age.

Perhaps you are suggesting that the US environment screws up these Mexican ladies and destroys their morals and good sense? Maybe but I doubt it.

Exactly what message is it you are trying to deliver?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Portland OR
404 posts, read 1,145,604 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
Citizenship occurs at birth and has no connection to how that birth was orchestrated.
The original law was not intended with egregious abuse in mind, such as trespassing into the US for the purpose of giving birth here, so that the offspring can have a citizenship here. So you're correct within the scope of current law.

This however doesn't meant that we can't put illegals under close scrutiny. Start the process the minute the pregnant mother applies for benefits to prove legal immigration status or citizenship.

Being pregnant, a new mother or having family members doesn't provide for immunity from deportation.

When we know the kid was born here and the identity of mother, it is a given that the mother was in the US. It is deduced beyond reasonable doubt that the mother was in the US when the birth was given. If legal presence can not be established for mother at the time, that's an automatic illegal immigration charge on her. We should be using "prior illegal entry & immigration violations" as a basis for family based sponsorship down the road.

If the adults know that having kids won't give them an anchor to stay here, they may think twice. If the kid was born here to someone, allowing the mother to STAY is unacceptable. It should be either allow the kid to accompany the mother as she is deported or at her discretion, give it up for adoption. This ensures that adults can't use child birth as a means to benefit themselves.

Even if an illegal have kids with a citizen and becomes married, there is no reason why the state can't order deportation and exercise the rights to deny reentry based on crime of illegal entry.

The marriage maybe valid, however so is deportation order and entry denial based on illegal entry violation.

We're not utilizing all the avenues available to lock out illegals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 11:03 AM
 
Location: NW Las Vegas - Lone Mountain
15,756 posts, read 32,524,913 times
Reputation: 2661
First off the issue is resources - money. The immigration people deport as many people as they can given their resources. They have no trouble finding more illegals. But they have no resource to deal with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TechmanOR View Post
The original law was not intended with egregious abuse in mind, such as trespassing into the US for the purpose of giving birth here, so that the offspring can have a citizenship here. So you're correct within the scope of current law.

This however doesn't meant that we can't put illegals under close scrutiny. Start the process the minute the pregnant mother applies for benefits to prove legal immigration status or citizenship.
Money - resources - there isn't any to pay for close scrutiny.

Quote:
Being pregnant, a new mother or having family members doesn't provide for immunity from deportation.

When we know the kid was born here and the identity of mother, it is a given that the mother was in the US. It is deduced beyond reasonable doubt that the mother was in the US when the birth was given. If legal presence can not be established for mother at the time, that's an automatic illegal immigration charge on her. We should be using "prior illegal entry & immigration violations" as a basis for family based sponsorship down the road.
First off where is it stated that the woman is illegal. Many such births occur to those here legallly.

There is no such thing as an automatic illegal immigration charge. The feds must prove that she entered the country illegally. They won't as it is difficult and costly.


Quote:
If the adults know that having kids won't give them an anchor to stay here, they may think twice. If the kid was born here to someone, allowing the mother to STAY is unacceptable. It should be either allow the kid to accompany the mother as she is deported or at her discretion, give it up for adoption. This ensures that adults can't use child birth as a means to benefit themselves.
Anchor baby is mostly an anti delusion. People do come to the US to have babies particularly in the border areas. They then leave. Others come for work, form families, and procreate. They have no particular intention of gaining welfare though they may well use it if live gets hard. What they really intend to do is immigrate to the US and they will likely succeed. Practically if not legally.
Even if an illegal have kids with a citizen and becomes married, there is no reason why the state can't order deportation and exercise the rights to deny reentry based on crime of illegal entry.

Quote:
The marriage maybe valid, however so is deportation order and entry denial based on illegal entry violation.

We're not utilizing all the avenues available to lock out illegals.
Again money. It costs to get a finding of illegal entry. So immigration does not normally do so. They get the illegal to sign a voluntary which does not admit illegal entry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 12:55 PM
 
3,204 posts, read 2,385,966 times
Reputation: 1544
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
First off the issue is resources - money. The immigration people deport as many people as they can given their resources. They have no trouble finding more illegals. But they have no resource to deal with them.



Money - resources - there isn't any to pay for close scrutiny.



First off where is it stated that the woman is illegal. Many such births occur to those here legally.

There is no such thing as an automatic illegal immigration charge. The feds must prove that she entered the country illegally. They won't as it is difficult and costly.




Anchor baby is mostly an anti delusion. People do come to the US to have babies particularly in the border areas. They then leave. Others come for work, form families, and procreate. They have no particular intention of gaining welfare though they may well use it if live gets hard. What they really intend to do is immigrate to the US and they will likely succeed. Practically if not legally.
Even if an illegal have kids with a citizen and becomes married, there is no reason why the state can't order deportation and exercise the rights to deny reentry based on crime of illegal entry.



Again money. It costs to get a finding of illegal entry. So immigration does not normally do so. They get the illegal to sign a voluntary which does not admit illegal entry.

Citizens in this country have to prove their citizenship for many things. Illegals should be given three days to prove citizenship or be deported. If you were born here it would be easy enough for LE to obtain a fax from the state of birth within that timeframe for verification. If not, adios.

It's only difficult if you make it so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 01:12 PM
 
5,532 posts, read 5,724,213 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
Nonsense. The ferility rate goes down as they become assimilated. Happens every time.

And the fertility rate in Mexico is rapidly approaching that of the US. And note that the US could use a little increase in fertility. Need someone to pay when the present young generation gets to my age.

Perhaps you are suggesting that the US environment screws up these Mexican ladies and destroys their morals and good sense? Maybe but I doubt it.

Exactly what message is it you are trying to deliver?
It is a touchy subject.
What he is trying to say is that we, in the US created the conditions for the tsunami of illegal immigration. First with the stupid law of automatic citizenship for babies born here and later with welfare. These young women who couldn't afford having many babies at young age in Latin America can afford them here. And that by itself attracts even more illegals (not only from South and Central America. There is a growing industry of pregnant tourists from China and the Philippines).
My personal interpretation is that the US created a problem of gigantic proportions which became extremely dfficlult to solve. If everything we see was in small numbers, it could be easily solved. No country on the globe can cope with tens of millions of immigrants.

Last edited by oberon_1; 10-17-2011 at 01:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 01:43 PM
 
1,770 posts, read 2,536,666 times
Reputation: 1155
Just fine and/or threaten to imprison those who harbor them!!
Without jobs and places to live they will go back and the rests won't come!!!

We don't really have to spend much money... tighten the laws. Get strict on the ones enabling them to be here!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,016,445 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isitmeorarethingsnuts? View Post
Citizens in this country have to prove their citizenship for many things. Illegals should be given three days to prove citizenship or be deported. If you were born here it would be easy enough for LE to obtain a fax from the state of birth within that timeframe for verification. If not, adios.

It's only difficult if you make it so.
Voting? Jury Duty? Holding certain political offices? That's the only things I can think of (and they are not common, daily occurrences) that would require proof of U.S. citizenship.

Legal residents can own guns, buy property, open accounts and credit cards, all without U.S. citizenship. Driver's licenses in all states are open to them as well. Perhaps you can clarify your statement as to where U.S. citizens are required to prove that status (and how).

There are U.S. citizens that have naturalized that will have foreign birth certificates. Putting an administrative process in place so that things are done in a timely manner (with some U.S. citizens also not having birth certificates, or being hard to locate one) before prosecution as a non-citizen (deportation; How do we determine the "home country" in some cases?) is unreasonable. What do we do in a case where a U.S. citizen is unlawfully detained or deported?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 02:01 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,307,591 times
Reputation: 6451
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Both parties are guilty of not securing our borders and not taking measures to remove incentives for illegals to come here or remain here in the past. However, at least the Republicans have tried to pass laws to discourage illegal immigration through state laws and they always get challenged by the Obama administration (Democrats).

As for the money that is spent on wars that is a separate issue. I don't always agree with it but it has nothing to do with illegal immigration.

You know what, i agree with you. Both parties are guilty about not wanting to secure our borders, shame on them.

Your right the Republicians have at least tried to pass laws that discourage illegal immigration, only to get knocked down. And with those State laws, getting challenged by this Obama asministration, shame shame on them, and just who the hell do they think they are.

Wrong what they are doing by challenging States Law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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