No More Anchor Babies?? (employment, visa, European, world)
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.
This is "what," as it pertains to dual nationality...
The problem is that being born outside the U.S. in a country with birthright citizenship, and/or to a foreign citizen parent (regardless of birth location, U.S. or abroad) whose country of nationality has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship laws regardless of place of birth, automatically confers conflicting citizenship and allegiance, which sets up a host of other problems.
No it doesn't. You can simply give up one if it works better for you.
Wong Kim Ark was actually a far worse circumstance than an illegal alien child. His parents were barred from ever being citizens.
The interpretation of the law by all those in authority is consistent. They are citizens. That is in all 50 states and the Federal Government.
As was said above you are welcome to your opinion...but it is worthless.
And again the decision makes no difference in deportations. Merely confines those involved to the grey society and market.
No it was not, You forget the slaughterhouse cases,
"In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) — a civil rights case not dealing specifically with birthright citizenship — a majority of the Supreme Court mentioned in passing that "the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States".
And Elk v, Wilkins (1884)
"The court's majority held that the children of Native Americans were no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations."
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), while it didn't rule on illegals' children born here and isn't relevant to illegals, it was in conflict with previous interpretation and was not an unanimous decision. Do you also claim Dred Scott was a correct decision even at its time?
LOL, not sure how many times you have repeated yourself to me, but I did not quote you and I stated I agreed with the other poster in that we need to have an amendment to definitively define citizenship being based on the nationality of the parents of a child, not based on where the child was born.
Also, I feel that having an amnesty program for path to citizenship would be a compromise that the right could make with the left on this issue in order to get the defining of citizenship based on nationality. The reason why our government has not been working well of late is because both sides refuse to compromise. I am a person who seeks to get things done and problem solve. Both of these options are compromises to the other side while doing something the other side wants. Both should be done.
Also, I'm black and I have no problem finding jobs. IMO black people need to focus on education in an effort to expand our class of professionals and the black middle class. Working out in fields or chicken factories or in restaurants is not something our youth should be focused on. I see black people in a much more holistic view than you do since I am black and am not enamored with the idea that just because some illegal immigrants are here that black people don't have or can't find jobs. I know that black people have always been discriminated against in the workforce even prior to illegal immigrants being in the picture so I don't see that as a reason not to allow the compromise and provide a residency option for illegal immigrants who have lived in this country 10+ years and who have no criminal record.
ETA: I also was a "poor" black American as a child. I am nearly 40 years old and I have actually worked with illegal immigrants (they worked as laborers on projects I managed when I worked in the construction industry). I have never been afraid of them taking my job. They cannot possibly take my job because I am much more highly educated than they are and I have a skill set that is in demand. I am teaching my children to do the same as well as my nephews/nieces, some of whom are living in "poor" households. I expect all of them will turn out more successfully than I am because I assist them in educational and career goals. They do not need to be doing any jobs that poor people do after they get out of college. They need to focus on networking/interning or entrepreneurship if they do not want to go to college or learning a trade. Most illegal immigrants do not have any in-demand skillset, not even the construction laborers.
Illegals hurt the middle class and legal poor. Not everyone can be in management
No it was not, You forget the slaughterhouse cases,
"In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) — a civil rights case not dealing specifically with birthright citizenship — a majority of the Supreme Court mentioned in passing that "the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States".
And Elk v, Wilkins (1884)
"The court's majority held that the children of Native Americans were no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations."
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), while it didn't rule on illegals' children born here and isn't relevant to illegals, it was in conflict with previous interpretation and was not an unanimous decision. Do you also claim Dred Scott was a correct decision even at its time?
Indians were in that strange limbo where they were tribal members but not citizens. Actually the story is of the US trying to cover up that which is proof of the illegality of much US behavior. We do not like to admit our racist roots even then.
And we have often done things which are obviously immoral or even unconstitutional because of various pressures. Dred Scott for one...or the Chinese exclusion act or the internment of the Japanese.
However nothing shakes the Ark decision as making it clear we grant citizenship to kids born here with the exception of the kids of diplomats or invaders.
Indians were in that strange limbo where they were tribal members but not citizens. Actually the story is of the US trying to cover up that which is proof of the illegality of much US behavior. We do not like to admit our racist roots even then.
And we have often done things which are obviously immoral or even unconstitutional because of various pressures. Dred Scott for one...or the Chinese exclusion act or the internment of the Japanese.
However nothing shakes the Ark decision as making it clear we grant citizenship to kids born here with the exception of the kids of diplomats or invaders.
Things change and, it's def time to put the hurt to illegal aliens so, they'll go back home.
Too; birthright needs to go away for any US born kid unless at least 1 parent's a US citizen. Even Ireland put a stop to birthright about 10 years ago.
I wish the left and right would come together and compromise on immigration and change our current citizenship laws to make it necessary to have one parent be an American citizen at the birth of the child. I also would want to see there be a path to citizenship program for all illegal immigrants in the country who have lived in the country for a certain amount of years and who have a clean criminal record.
What part of "illegal" don't you understand? There is no such thing as an illegal with "a clean criminal record". The term "honest illegal alien" is a oxymoron.
When a person decided to either sneak across the border or overstay a visa, they become lawbreakers. In order for them to survive in this country, in order to work, they have to do one of the following: 1) Engage in ID theft; 2) Use a fake SSN. Despicably, there is a loophole in the law that says it's okay if someone uses your SSN as long as they don't use your name with it. Someone right now could be using your SSN with a different name attached and the SSA won't tell you. You only find out when the IRS comes after you for not filing a return on a job you never worked. Disgracefully, no politicians on either side of the aisle have made an effort to close this loophole, despite there being victims who got put in a world of hurt; 3) They get paid under the table, thereby engaging in tax evasion; 4) The law says if one is in the country illegally, one is not allowed to work.
So...there are no illegals "who have a clean criminal record". Period. We owe illegals nothing but a one way ticket back to where they came from---and that's being generous.
What part of "illegal" don't you understand? There is no such thing as an illegal with "a clean criminal record". The term "honest illegal alien" is a oxymoron.
When a person decided to either sneak across the border or overstay a visa, they become lawbreakers. In order for them to survive in this country, in order to work, they have to do one of the following: 1) Engage in ID theft; 2) Use a fake SSN. Despicably, there is a loophole in the law that says it's okay if someone uses your SSN as long as they don't use your name with it. Someone right now could be using your SSN with a different name attached and the SSA won't tell you. You only find out when the IRS comes after you for not filing a return on a job you never worked. Disgracefully, no politicians on either side of the aisle have made an effort to close this loophole, despite there being victims who got put in a world of hurt; 3) They get paid under the table, thereby engaging in tax evasion; 4) The law says if one is in the country illegally, one is not allowed to work.
So...there are no illegals "who have a clean criminal record". Period.
Cite some laws. There are violations in some cases but nothing considered criminal. I traveled internationally a good bit and I was always working yet generally used a tourist visa or traveled under tourist laws. I think you would find that very common among commercial travelers.
And the one about being paid in cash. How do you get that being illegal?
Is there a law that actually says you can't work? Cite it please.
Indians were in that strange limbo where they were tribal members but not citizens. Actually the story is of the US trying to cover up that which is proof of the illegality of much US behavior. We do not like to admit our racist roots even then.
You mean like illegals who are in limbo where they are citizens and nationals of a foreign nation and here illegally? At least the Indians were always legals. There's nothing illegal or wrong with determining who can and cannot be a citizen.
Quote:
And we have often done things which are obviously immoral or even unconstitutional because of various pressures. Dred Scott for one...or the Chinese exclusion act or the internment of the Japanese.
None of these examples were necessarily immoral or unconstitutional and due to various pressures at the time anymore than giving citizenship to children of those illegally colonizing a nation today is. You liberals want to give citizenship to the illegals who are foreign born too.
Quote:
However nothing shakes the Ark decision as making it clear we grant citizenship to kids born here with the exception of the kids of diplomats or invaders.
And those who are not legal permanent residence. KMA specifically found in favor of native born who are legal permanent residents, but is still akin to "Dred Scott" in selectively interpreting the constitution.
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.
