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.
Yes the do. And you have never published any evidence they don't.
No, they don't.
I've posted both Congress' actual discussion of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause when it was introduced in 1866, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to which the discussion referred. Neither grant birthright citizenship to illegal aliens' children.
I've posted both Congress' actual discussion of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause when it was introduced in 1866, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to which the discussion referred. Neither grant birthright citizenship to illegal aliens' children.
You regularly and repetitiously publish inane garbage analysis easily refuted by the RW publications and completely refuted by the actions of the 50 states and the Federal Government.
And none of that has anything to do with how jus soli is implemented in other countries in the western hemisphere.
Your MO is obvious. You attempt to prevail by endless repetition of the absurd.
You regularly and repetitiously publish inane garbage analysis
I posted links to the actual Congressional discussion of the 14th, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the USCIS.
You're the one posting inane and irrelevant 150 years after the fact revisionist analyses. And those revisionist analyses contradict themselves in an attempt to twist the meaning to what it isn't. It's pathetic, really. They're factually incorrect. Get over it.
And none of that has anything to do with how jus soli is implemented in other countries in the western hemisphere.
Actually, it has to do with other countries' jus sanguinis citizenship/nationality laws...
"and not subject to any foreign power"
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, to which Senator Howard referred when he said the 14th Amendment citizenship clause he introduced was declaratory of what was already the law of the land.
People who bring them here are child abusers. I have an out-of-the-box thought; pass a law (not sure if it should be Federal or state-by-state) providing that if a baby is born in the U.S. to two non-citizen parents those parents have two choices; 1) return to their native lands with the baby; or 2) baby is deemed surrendered for adoption to U.S. citizens or legally resident non-citizens, and the parents go back without their children.This seems to be countenanced by law. The 14th Amendment states:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14th Amendment
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Nothing in that Amendment applies to the parents, nor gives them rights. However, the decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark construes the 14th Amendment to require that babies born in the U.S. are citizens. Thus the conundrum posed by "birthright" or "anchor" babies.
My proposal to give the parents a choice between returning to their countries with their babies or leaving them here but returning themselves isn't as heartless as it sounds. The parents can always keep their children; by returning to where they should be. Remember, the parents created a dangerous situation by deciding to have a baby in a country in which they were not legally present, or if legal, only on a very temporary basis.
People who bring them here are child abusers. I have an out-of-the-box thought; pass a law (not sure if it should be Federal or state-by-state) providing that if a baby is born in the U.S. to two non-citizen parents those parents have two choices; 1) return to their native lands with the baby; or 2) baby is deemed surrendered for adoption to U.S. citizens or legally resident non-citizens, and the parents go back without their children.This seems to be countenanced by law. The 14th Amendment states:
Nothing in that Amendment applies to the parents, nor gives them rights. However, the decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark construes the 14th Amendment to require that babies born in the U.S. are citizens. Thus the conundrum posed by "birthright" or "anchor" babies.
My proposal to give the parents a choice between returning to their countries with their babies or leaving them here but returning themselves isn't as heartless as it sounds. The parents can always keep their children; by returning to where they should be. Remember, the parents created a dangerous situation by deciding to have a baby in a country in which they were not legally present, or if legal, only on a very temporary basis.[/quote]
Incorrect. Wong Kim Ark was about parents who had legal domicile in our country. They weren't illegal aliens.
Since Trump is all powerful why isn't an amendment being put forward. Whatever your fantasies, the only possible change here would come in a constitutional amendment.
The Trump family is promoting Green Cards is you buy a condo
"Nicole Kushner Meyer, the sister of White House adviser and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, spoke at an event in Beijing on Saturday. She was marketing a Kushner-owned property in New Jersey -- invest in the development and get into the United States on a so-called EB-5 visa."
So, are people saying that if said condo buyers (permanent residents) come here and then have children here...the children are no citizens?
As it stands that condo purchase buys your USA born kids USA citizenship
"The child’s parents can apply for certification of citizenship as proof of the child’s status, using Form N-600. They may also apply for a U.S. passport for the child."
I think many Americans would like to see more specifics on birthright....than again, I don't believe that condo buyers should get automatic residency. Many of them are shell corporations and other funny money......
I really admire people that will break up families just because of some bureaucratic nonsense about where the kids parents were born. The kid is an AMERICAN CITIZEN about to be deported because he picked the wrong parents. That has to be American Justice at its finest.
Explain why you think the parents will abandon their kids? Is it because you think hispanics are horrible people? Or is it because you just repeat things you hear without giving it much thought?
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.
