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 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adopted 144 years ago on July 9, provides for the grant of birthright citizenship to the American-born children of unauthorized immigrants and lawful immigrants with various forms of residency. Despite the current controversy around this provision, the 14th Amendment is unintentionally successful as a policy for assimilating the children of immigrants.
Immigrants to the U.S. assimilate very quickly. Speaking of America’s openness to immigrants, former President Ronald Reagan stated, “An immigrant can live in France but not become a Frenchman; he can live in Germany but not become a German; he can live in Japan but not become Japanese, but anyone from any part of the world can come to America and become an American.” Americans, immigrants, and their descendants become Americans. Our system of birthright citizenship makes “Americanization” even easier.
....
First, a little bit of history. The 14th Amendment, enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, included the citizenship clause to overrule the 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that in part stated that black Americans could never become citizens.
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment reads: “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.”
During the debate, it was understood that the citizenship clause would extend to the children of immigrants who were, under the existing immigration law, unable to naturalize, such as Asians and other nonwhite immigrants.
Sen. Jacob Howard, R-Mich., introduced the citizenship clause. During Senate debate, he said it “will not, of course, include persons 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 persons.”
....
In the U.S., by contrast, children of immigrants are legally on the same playing field as children born to American citizens. Both can serve in the military, purchase firearms, serve on juries, and be treated the same by the legal system. That is one reason why 89 percent of second-generation Hispanics and 96 percent of third-generation Hispanics have described themselves as American only.
1. a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.
2. a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, especially a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson. Compare resident alien.
An illegal immigrant is a person who has entered the country without official authorization. Federal immigration law provides means by which certain aliens can become naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law determines who may enter, how long they may stay and when they must leave.
The main legislation governing immigration is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, (INA). The act hads been amended numerous times, the most significant of which was the establishment of a new quota system in 1965. For INA purposes, an "alien" is any person who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. There are different categories of aliens: resident and nonresident, immigrant and nonimmigrant, documented and undocumented ("illegal").
There is a vast difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien. As for birthright citizenship, the distinct difference is that illegal aliens are NOT subject to the jurisidiction of the US.
Last edited by PurpleRain_1; 08-05-2012 at 03:33 PM..
...There is a vast difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien. As for birthright citizenship, the distinct difference is that illegal aliens are NOT subject to the jurisidiction of the US.
How is an immigrant subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and an illegal alien is not?...
How is an immigrant subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and an illegal alien is not?...
We've already gone over this. Illegals can not join the military. They are not recognized as residents of any state, etc. Non-immigrants fall in the same scenario. It all falls down to allegiance. WKA and Gray:
Quote:
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.
The parents must be here and owe allegiance to the US in order for the child to inherit that allegiance. Allegiance makes them "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
As to the OP: Alex Nowrasteh is the immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. There's that global ideology again. Besides it's not but an opinion piece. He is also under the assumption that the 14th must be amended.
"Immigrants" as defined, are here with the authority of the US gov't.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 08-05-2012 at 04:57 PM..
We've already gone over this. Illegals can not join the military. They are not recognized as residents of any state, etc. It all falls down to allegiance. WKA and Gray:
At least a million times. Thank you for stating it for those who have a problem with reading comprehension.
The German guest-worker program of the 1950s through the 1970s admitted large numbers of Turks, Tunisians, Portuguese, and others to work in the growing economy. Originally, the Germans had no intention of letting the workers and their families stay permanently, but many, especially the Turks, did stay. Their German-born children were not allowed to become citizens. The same was true in Japan where the Korean minority, called zainichi, was barred from citizenship for generations despite being born in Japan.
In both countries, the results were tragic. The lack of birthright citizenship created a legal underclass of resentful and displaced young people who were officially discriminated against in the government-run education system and had tenuous allegiance to the nation in which they were born. After four generations in Japan, ethnic Koreans still self-identify as foreign. In both countries, these noncitizen youths are more prone to crime and extreme political ideologies like communism.
......
Youths born to noncitizen immigrants in nations without birthright citizenship have little legal stake in the nations they were born in but also have no place to go. Many might gain citizenship through the ethnicity of their parents in Korea or Turkey, but with no connections to those nations, citizenship there is meaningless.
In the U.S., by contrast, children of immigrants are legally on the same playing field as children born to American citizens. Both can serve in the military, purchase firearms, serve on juries, and be treated the same by the legal system. That is one reason why 89 percent of second-generation Hispanics and 96 percent of third-generation Hispanics have described themselves as American only. "Hispanic-American" or "Mexican-American" is still popular among some after several generations, just as "Italian-American" still survives, but these Americans do not view themselves as foreigners.
It seems to me birthright citizenship has spared us from potentially millions of rascals. If a pathway to legalization existed for illegal aliens who were brought over as children, we may very well see the downfall of the more radical Dreamers and more rapid assimilation of them into the broader American community.
It seems to me birthright citizenship has spared us from potentially millions of rascals. If a pathway to legalization existed for illegal aliens who were brought over as children, we may very well see the downfall of the more radical Dreamers and more rapid assimilation of them into the broader American community.
I'd say catch and deport ANY Dream Act person on the spot.
Allegiance?
It seems to me birthright citizenship has spared us from potentially millions of rascals. If a pathway to legalization existed for illegal aliens who were brought over as children, we may very well see the downfall of the more radical Dreamers and more rapid assimilation of them into the broader American community.
Yes, allegiance. Allegiance is allowed to and owed by the immigrant from the gov't. It is this allegiance that is passed down to the child born here. If there is no allegiance to pass down, then at best a child born here may be a US National, but not a citizen.
The lack of BRC to immigrant children in Germany created German Nationals, only limited in certain aspects as to being unable to vote in elections and very few other circumstances. It is those extreme political ideas that they inherited from their parents and as to the reason why they were only given nationality and not citizenship. Germany doesn't want its society corrupted by the influence or ideals of other countries.
To claim those children have no place to go is pure BS. People move from one location to another all the time. IBM should know this, military take their families with them to Europe, and all over the states every few years. The parents only need to register their child's birth with their countries consul to which the child will be given citizenship of that country. Its spelled out with: with no connections to those nations, citizenship there is meaningless. Too bad, so sad. Welcome to life, make of it what you can.
Last paragraph, again specific to "legal immigrants" having children in the US. We all agree they are born citizens of the US as long as there parents have on file the proper paperwork.
The writer is purposefully attempting to blur the distinction of legal and illegals simply by interjecting Hispanic into the mix.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 08-05-2012 at 05:24 PM..
Yes, allegiance. Allegiance is allowed to and owed by the immigrant from the gov't. It is this allegiance that is passed down to the child born here. If there is no allegiance to pass down, then at best a child born here may be a US National, but not a citizen.
The lack of BRC to immigrant children in Germany created German Nationals, only limited in certain aspects as to being unable to vote in elections and very few other circumstances. It is those extreme political ideas that they inherited from their parents and as to the reason why they were only given nationality and not citizenship. Germany doesn't want its society corrupted by the influence or ideals of other countries.
To claim those children have no place to go is pure BS. People move from one location to another all the time. IBM should know this, military take their families with them to Europe, and all over the states every few years. The parents only need to register their child's birth with their countries consul to which the child will be given citizenship of that country. Its spelled out with: with no connections to those nations, citizenship there is meaningless. Too bad, so sad. Welcome to life, make of it what you can.
Last paragraph, again specific to "legal immigrants" having children in the US. We all agree they are born citizens of the US as long as there parents have on file the proper paperwork.
The writer is purposefully attempting to blur the distinction of legal and illegals simply by interjecting Hispanic into the mix.
There is not necessarily an ability by any U.S. citizen or LPR to be able to serve in the U.S. military. And, as you bring up military families, the son or daughter of illegal immigrants can serve with unimpeded security clearances if needed (their birth here is thought to provide more allegiance to the United States), whereas the foreign-born, although legally immigrating, are restricted from anything but the most basic of clearances.
I am unfamiliar with "accompanied [by family] tours", all of my deployments were to countries unfriendly enough that you couldn't have family along. My only exposure to Europe was traveling through it to get somewhere else. Never saw the Far East, kept getting stuck in the Middle.
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.
Welcome to life, make of it what you can.
