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.
Other countries removed birthright citizenship from their laws because they were getting flooded with third world country poor immigrants.
In 2004 Ireland ended it and since then no European country has birthright citzenship.
But over here the debate is that the US will fall into the economic abyss if we end it.
Somehow all these poor illegal immigrants are needed to keep the US economically afloat.
The term "anchor baby" is a lie. Being the parent of a citizen does not give an alien the right to remain in the United States.
But you already knew that.
Illegal alien parents have that perception, however. Not to mention that they know by giving birth on our soil they will be entitled to all kinds of welfare benefits through them.
The parents know that we cannot deport their anchor babies and so they rely on the sympathy card of "separation of families" since the parents are deportable.
Question asked and answered... Look up that legal concept.
Here's the decision:
Quote:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Let's parse it out, shall we?
A child, who at the time of his birth was:
born in the United States
of parents of Chinese descent
said parents are subjects of the Emperor of China
said parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States at time of child's birth
said parents were carrying on business at time of child's birth
said parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China at time of child's birth
becomes at the time of birth a citizen of the United States.
So, Informed Consent, why are you only picking out only qualification #4?
Under the legal concept of jus soli, only #1 and #6 are required for U.S. citizenship.
You act like this is something new, if you are born here, you are an American.
It's something that needs to change.
My change is to tell every nation, if your citizens come into the US in a fraudulent or illegal manner, or overstay their visa, and give birth to a child in our country, that child is NOT a US citizen, it is a citizen to the country of the child's birth parents.
said parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States at time of child's birth
said parents were carrying on business at time of child's birth
said parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China at time of child's birth
becomes at the time of birth a citizen of the United States.
So, Informed Consent, why are you only picking out only qualification #4?
I've merely mentioned a condition on which the children born in the U.S. of alien parentage would NOT acquire U.S. citizenship at birth: lack of the alien parent's established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of their child's birth.
Quote:
Yes, I did 'look it up'.
Great! Then, you know that it's the question asked and answered that establishes a precedent set by a court ruling. Luckily for us all, Gray states exactlythe question asked and answered in the closing paragraph of the majority opinion.
My change is to tell every nation, if your citizens come into the US in a fraudulent or illegal manner, or overstay their visa, and give birth to a child in our country, that child is NOT a US citizen, it is a citizen to the country of the child's birth parents.
Just change US law like all other countries did to require one parent to be a citizen of that country.
Just change US law like all other countries did to require one parent to be a citizen of that country.
And then only if that citizen parent agrees to provide all the support for that child.
We're having a big problem with many of these people coming for the easy citizenship and also the easy government handouts.
Many who could be deported and should be deported now use those children as bargaining tools, threatening to simply abandon those children if they are deported. They don't even want their own children if they have to go back home. The only reason they have these children is for the easy way around immigration laws and for the government handouts they bring them.
and a birther shows that he doesn't understand what "permanent domicile" means.
Hint: it doesn't mean you live in the US all your life and never leave.
It also DOESN'T mean, in the U.S. illegally or only on a temporary student/tourist visa, or for such a short time that a tourist visa isn't even required.
This troubles me more than the children of illegals getting citizenship at least they will live here and hopefully assimilate. This on the other hand is a real threat to national security and cheapens US citizenship which means nothing will be done.
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.