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.
So? Is it suddenly your opinion that we should be modeling ourselves after the European countries? That would be an interesting turn.
It's curious that now all of a sudden the right cares that most other modern countries do things differently than us. But if you were to point this out about say, health care or welfare, they'd go into "love it or leave it" mode.
I thought you were a strong supporter of the constitution. So now you want to pick and choose which parts are good and which are bad in your opinion?
It needs to be amended. We should not let anyone to just cross our border to have a baby and grant it full citizenship.
We do not force people who visit our country, foreign ambassadors, or clergy to make their child a US citizen. We need to have a law and a treaty with all nations to respect the citizenship of their citizens, by allowing their children born here, to retain the same citizenship status as that of their parents, especially if they broke our immigration laws.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,838,945 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe
Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100521/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2192 - broken link)
"The author of Arizona's immigration law told constituents he wants to pass another measure to invalidate citizenship granted to the children of illegal aliens."
This man should run for President.
I could go along with this as long as it was part of a comprehensive package with amnesty and it plainly stated that at least one of the parents had to have a "legal presence" in the country as opposed to being a "citizen" like his proposal says. 2 people that are here legally - such as Permanent Residents- who have children are obviously intending that their children be citizens of the USA. There is no reason to bar them from being such.
I could go along with this as long as it was part of a comprehensive package with amnesty and it plainly stated that at least one of the parents had to have a "legal presence" in the country as opposed to being a "citizen".
It is time to rule that rule out and send the whole bunch back to their home country.
OMG, the gross misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment just portrayed in this statement and how it plays on immigration (illegals or not).
Just because illegal alien parents or parent has a child in the US or as 'anchor babies" doesn't mean that the illegal alien parents or parent gets an automatic pass to stay in the country.
They, can be deported the same as other non-parental illegal aliens, and their child, most of the time GO with them back to their country (the only exception is given if it can be demonstrated that if they were to be forced back, that the child and the parent(s) would be persecuted in their home country - in which they can be given a Visa which is a whole other topic)
The only GUARANTEE that is given is that the CHILD is given US Citizenship and ONLY that child. When the child reaches age of majority, he or she can return to the US and be afforded all rights as a US Citizen.
For those arguing against the the birthright citizenship answer me this:
What is the difference between immigrant parents (who are not citizens) giving birth on US Soil and staying here in the US for all of that child's life, the child getting tons of education here, paying his dues to society
and between
A couple that are US Citizens, have a child born on US Soil, but because of their business raise their child in other countries through his/her life, and the child only returns to the US when the he/she is say 45 years of age, and the only "US" loyalty he/she has shown is just being a US Citizen.
What makes the latter more of a 'citizen' than the former?
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,838,945 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno3314
It sure doesn't make a whole lot of sense today....especially when you consider the way it gets abused today. At the time it was written , I'm sure it wasn't that much of a big deal to just allow it and then if the parents didn't want to stay in the U.S., they'd leave and the child would end up being a citizen of what ever country the parents were citizens of....it more or less made it an option the parents could consider if they wanted to use it. They could have never imaged how (with all the entitlements we have now) it would end getting abused like it has the last few decades.
I agree that it has been abused and probably needs to change. It is just plain dumb to me that we give full citizenship to a baby that might be born in an airplane flying from Jamaica to Canada just because the birth occurred in our airspace. Imagine that- a US Citizen baby that never even set foot on our soil! It is beyond silly.
But we have to be very careful about doing this. That is why I am for the more liberal "legal presence" standard in determining the citizenship of a baby born here.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,838,945 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
OMG, the gross misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment just portrayed in this statement and how it plays on immigration (illegals or not).
Just because illegal alien parents or parent has a child in the US or as 'anchor babies" doesn't mean that the illegal alien parents or parent gets an automatic pass to stay in the country.
They, can be deported the same as other non-parental illegal aliens, and their child, most of the time GO with them back to their country (the only exception is given if it can be demonstrated that if they were to be forced back, that the child and the parent(s) would be persecuted in their home country - in which they can be given a Visa which is a whole other topic)
The only GUARANTEE that is given is that the CHILD is given US Citizenship and ONLY that child. When the child reaches age of majority, he or she can return to the US and be afforded all rights as a US Citizen.
For those arguing against the the birthright citizenship answer me this:
What is the difference between immigrant parents (who are not citizens) giving birth on US Soil and staying here in the US for all of that child's life, the child getting tons of education here, paying his dues to society
and between
A couple that are US Citizens, have a child born on US Soil, but because of their business raise their child in other countries through his/her life, and the child only returns to the US when the he/she is say 45 years of age, and the only "US" loyalty he/she has shown is just being a US Citizen.
What makes the latter more of a 'citizen' than the former?
I agree that they should not have to be citizens BUT at least ONE of them should be in the country legally- and if it is the father, it should be verified with DNA testing.
I agree that they should not have to be citizens BUT at least ONE of them should be in the country legally- and if it is the father, it should be verified with DNA testing.
Legally here or not, that is not a requirement and should never be a requirement.
DNA is not required to establish citizenship and that is treading of violation of privacy.
Again, I ask, what makes the example I gave, where immigrant parents who have a child on US SOIL and that child (and has shown allegiance to the US) less of a citizen than a child who was born on US Soil to citizen parents, who spent most of his/her life in other countries, and only returns when he/she is well in his/her adultlife and has shown no "allegiance" to the US other than in name only?
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,838,945 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
Legally here or not, that is not a requirement and should never be a requirement.
DNA is not required to establish citizenship and that is treading of violation of privacy.
Again, I ask, what makes the example I gave, where immigrant parents who have a child on US SOIL and that child (and has shown allegiance to the US) less of a citizen than a child who was born on US Soil to citizen parents, who spent most of his/her life in other countries, and only returns when he/she is well in his/her adultlife and has shown no "allegiance" to the US other than in name only?
I think you have a legit question but the answer is that many of these children often end up on public aid, health aid and of course must be educated. Sooner or later we are going to have to make decisions on who we are going to be able to help. I think children that are of parents here legally deserve the help of taxpayers more than those who are not. I think that many people have children here because of the benefits and education we offer. As I said, I am for AMNESTY for those here now but at some point we are going to have to plug the hole. We simply cannot afford to support everybody from Mexico.
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.
