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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-12-2010, 08:15 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,176,297 times
Reputation: 2130

Advertisements

[quote=UrbanQuest;12877761]There are ballot initiatives gathering signatures in California on this issue. Does anyone know if there is any other push at the state level to address this issue? All we need, is to get this on a state referendum and it WILL pass. Then it goes to the courts. The courts is the only place we have a real chance on ending this huge problem.

The Supreme Court seems to be leaning right. They also seem to be very pro-business as well. 50-50 chances.

With 400,000 anchor babies born annually, we need to deal with this as soon as possible.

Does anyone know what would happen to current anchor children, if the courts did end birthright citizenship? Are there any precedents with a grandfather clause involved with a situation at least somewhat lateral to this issue?[/quote

HR1868 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009

This bill was sponsored by Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia (R) with 90 co-sponsors. Nothing has been done on it since its introduction in May of last year.

I believe it would change birthright citizenship to only newborns who have at least one citizen parent. I haven't read the whole thing but I doubt that it would be made retroactive to those not born under that criteria prior to the passing of the bill. It would however change the criteria for birthright citizenship after the bill was passed. It would probably have to be ratified by the Supreme Court which could be a problem especially with Sotomayer on the bench.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-13-2010, 09:48 AM
 
1,150 posts, read 993,172 times
Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard from Michigan (July 10, 1805 – April 2, 1871)

As a Senator, Howard is credited with working closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery.
During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Howard said:
[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.
Just who are these 'aliens' who are mentioned, if it doesn't include
illegal aliens? Does anyone really think the framers meant to exclude only the children of 'legal' aliens from citizenship, but that children of illegal aliens should be included?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 10:09 AM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,096,271 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayarcy View Post
Just who are these 'aliens' who are mentioned, if it doesn't include
illegal aliens? Does anyone really think the framers meant to exclude only the children of 'legal' aliens from citizenship, but that children of illegal aliens should be included?
Some would like to go back to Lincoln to find meaning to the 14th, but recently the precedent has already been set...

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193)

The act also requires us to report on the extent to which means-tested public benefits are provided to illegal aliens for the use of eligible
individuals. This is most likely to occur when an illegal alien parent noteligible for aid receives benefits on behalf of his or her U.S. citizen child. A child born in the United States to an illegal alien obtains U.S. citizenship at birth regardless of the parent’s immigration status and, as any other citizen in need, may receive welfare and other benefits. When such a child receives assistance, the aid also helps support the child’s family, raising concerns about the use of public assistance by those illegally in the United States.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/he98030.pdf


Since the law is still ineffect, means that no one has challeged it in the SC...If the SCOTUS overturns this law, THEN they will be setting meanng to the 14th.


But wouldnt that make them Activist Judges...Legislating from the Bench?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 10:28 AM
 
1,150 posts, read 993,172 times
Reputation: 369
<<Since the law is still ineffect, means that no one has challeged it in the SC...If the SCOTUS overturns this law, THEN they will be setting meanng to the 14th.


But wouldnt that make them Activist Judges...Legislating from the Bench?>>

No, it's a matter of interpretation. Why would that make them activist judges, when they're called upon all the time to interpret the meaning of a law? When they declare something unConstitutional, they're not legislating from the bench, they're interpreting the meaning of an existing law, and whether it's within the confines of the Constitution, or not. Otherwise you might say everytime they make a ruling, they're legislating from the bench, because aren't they stating what's legally acceptable, and what's not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 10:40 AM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,096,271 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayarcy View Post
<<Since the law is still ineffect, means that no one has challeged it in the SC...If the SCOTUS overturns this law, THEN they will be setting meanng to the 14th.


But wouldnt that make them Activist Judges...Legislating from the Bench?>>

No, it's a matter of interpretation. Why would that make them activist judges, when they're called upon all the time to interpret the meaning of a law? When they declare something unConstitutional, they're not legislating from the bench, they're interpreting the meaning of an existing law, and whether it's within the confines of the Constitution, or not. Otherwise you might say everytime they make a ruling, they're legislating from the bench, because aren't they stating what's legally acceptable, and what's not?
so it doesnt make them actvist judges...but they would be overturning current legislation and precedent. Something that the SC almost never does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 11:06 AM
 
1,150 posts, read 993,172 times
Reputation: 369
<<so it doesnt make them actvist judges...but they would be overturning current legislation and precedent. Something that the SC almost never does.>>

You're right about that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 05:44 PM
 
Location: central Oregon
1,856 posts, read 2,033,355 times
Reputation: 2382
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
Some would like to go back to Lincoln to find meaning to the 14th, but recently the precedent has already been set...

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193)

The act also requires us to report on the extent to which means-tested public benefits are provided to illegal aliens for the use of eligible
individuals. This is most likely to occur when an illegal alien parent noteligible for aid receives benefits on behalf of his or her U.S. citizen child. A child born in the United States to an illegal alien obtains U.S. citizenship at birth regardless of the parent’s immigration status and, as any other citizen in need, may receive welfare and other benefits. When such a child receives assistance, the aid also helps support the child’s family, raising concerns about the use of public assistance by those illegally in the United States.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/he98030.pdf


Since the law is still ineffect, means that no one has challeged it in the SC...If the SCOTUS overturns this law, THEN they will be setting meanng to the 14th.


But wouldnt that make them Activist Judges...Legislating from the Bench?
The link you gave has nothing to do with citizenship to illegal alien offspring. That IS the subject of this thread.
It does, however, have a lot to do with who receives welfare in its many forms. It also discusses how this Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 restricts and limits the access of public assistance to illegal aliens. Also, new guidelines were made about reporting said illegals to the INS.
Yes, illegal aliens have America citizen babies, and it's these little babies who are the money makers of the family.
It's the illegal giving away of US citizenship that is the current discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 05:59 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,096,271 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by tulani View Post
The link you gave has nothing to do with citizenship to illegal alien offspring. That IS the subject of this thread.
It does, however, have a lot to do with who receives welfare in its many forms. It also discusses how this Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 restricts and limits the access of public assistance to illegal aliens. Also, new guidelines were made about reporting said illegals to the INS.
Yes, illegal aliens have America citizen babies, and it's these little babies who are the money makers of the family.
It's the illegal giving away of US citizenship that is the current discussion.
The discussion was the meaning of the 14th. the passage I use was to show precedent. the 1996 act defines child of alien is US citizen, that has been the discussion for a while now...

I dont know what point your trying to make, and I dont have the strenght to recap every on topic point again.

Pick a point, state it and stick to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 06:48 PM
 
Location: central Oregon
1,856 posts, read 2,033,355 times
Reputation: 2382
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
The discussion was the meaning of the 14th. the passage I use was to show precedent. the 1996 act defines child of alien is US citizen, that has been the discussion for a while now...

I dont know what point your trying to make, and I dont have the strenght to recap every on topic point again.

Pick a point, state it and stick to it.
My point is that this act does NOT define that the child of an alien is a citizen; it merely states that said child is considered a citizen and can collect welfare benefits as any American born child can.
The 14th Amendment, however, DOES define the child of an alien as a citizen.
The Act does say they are citizens, but it had/has nothing to do with the actual law.
That's my point.
And, the 14th still needs to be changed.
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