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.
Why should children of illegals become U.S. citizens merely by being born on U.S. soil? Is there some reason for this—international law, or treaty, or some other reason?
It would solve a lot of our problems if these children were not given U.S. citizenship. That way, when the jobs were over (fruit harvest completed) or a problem arose (trouble with the law) the family could be relocated back to their country of origin with fewer complications.
Finally—Anyone who has read my posts realizes that I don’t necessarily think the presence of illegals is a bad thing in all situations. Like the California agriculture industry, for example, or to fill the low paying, difficult jobs that nobody else wants. I have not changed my opinions on this. I just wonder why we grant citizenship for the U.S. born kids of illegals.
Why should children of illegals become U.S. citizens merely by being born on U.S. soil? Is there some reason for this—international law, or treaty, or some other reason?
It would solve a lot of our problems if these children were not given U.S. citizenship. That way, when the jobs were over (fruit harvest completed) or a problem arose (trouble with the law) the family could be relocated back to their country of origin with fewer complications.
Finally—Anyone who has read my posts realizes that I don’t necessarily think the presence of illegals is a bad thing in all situations. Like the California agriculture industry, for example, or to fill the low paying, difficult jobs that nobody else wants. I have not changed my opinions on this. I just wonder why we grant citizenship for the U.S. born kids of illegals.
The legal framework for their citizenship is in the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, which says, in part,
Quote:
"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."
The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" eliminates certain people from being citizens at birth, such as the children of foreign diplomats. I think there ought to be a way to except the children of illegal immigrants here as well, so that the whole chain migration process can be slowed.
I happen to think that illegal immigration IS bad for our country. I haven't changed my opinion either. There is a long line of people waiting to come into the United States legally, and those sneaking in illegally are not only disrespecting our nation by ignoring our laws, they are getting in the way and mucking up the system for those who want to come here legally.
Why should children of illegals become U.S. citizens merely by being born on U.S. soil? Is there some reason for this—international law, or treaty, or some other reason?
It would solve a lot of our problems if these children were not given U.S. citizenship. That way, when the jobs were over (fruit harvest completed) or a problem arose (trouble with the law) the family could be relocated back to their country of origin with fewer complications.
Finally—Anyone who has read my posts realizes that I don’t necessarily think the presence of illegals is a bad thing in all situations. Like the California agriculture industry, for example, or to fill the low paying, difficult jobs that nobody else wants. I have not changed my opinions on this. I just wonder why we grant citizenship for the U.S. born kids of illegals.
Finally we agree on something! The reason that children of illegals get granted birthright citizenship is due to a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. It was not the intent of those who wrote it.
There is no reason to have illegal foreigners doing any jobs! If there truly is a shortage of American workers for certain jobs the employers can get visas for LEGAL foreigner workers. Why can't you grasp that concept?
"Why SHOULD they"? Who says they should? The fact that they ARE, is simply one of those 'legal loopholes' in the law; it's kept in place by powerful special-interest groups, pressured hard by ethnic activists and exacerbated by a lot of guilt and misplaced compassion.
But it's not fair to say they "should" (receive US citizenship)....because they SHOULDN'T. In MOST countries, they WOULDN'T. It makes no sense at all. Such legal 'maneuverings' are the precise reason why lawyers, lobbyists, and legislators are held in such contempt by the average American citizen.....because they DON'T do what they "should"...they do what they can "get away with". And the rest of us can see this.
My take on monkey cabal's thoughts would be to grandfather in existing minor age Anchor Babies* above a certain age; but, the parents will still need to leave the USA regardless.
As it is: outside of Canada; the only First World nation that still offers birthright citizenship is the USA (France and Ireland rescinded theirs not long ago).
*needless to say; if said Anchor who otherwise would not qualify is an orphan (or his/her parents abandoned their child).........said kid would default as a US citizen but not be able to sponsor the parents if they reappeared. I believe that all nations in the world have that loophole--------which is fair.
We would have few illegals giving birth in this country if they actually had to support their children, and if their children were not granted instant citizenship. It is THE magnet for a huge percentage of illegal immigration. End this scam, and the illegal alien population explosion would come to a screeching halt.
Why should children of illegals become U.S. citizens merely by being born on U.S. soil? Is there some reason for this—international law, or treaty, or some other reason?
.
Because we are ruled by our Constitution, and that is a provision of the Constitution. The Constitution can be changed through political processes. My guess would be that when and if it becomes a big enough issue, it will be changed. In the meantime we live within the framework of the Constitution as it exists today. Rather than creating another post lamenting the existing provisions, why not begin efforts to repeal the amendment . . . it's been done before (remember prohibition?).
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.
