Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-05-2016, 03:47 PM
 
62,968 posts, read 29,152,361 times
Reputation: 18591

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilEyeFleegle View Post
Well..that's kind of how it is now, yes? Babies no longer 'anchor' their parents..so they can either take them with or go without them.

Under Obama's DAPA the parents were allowed a stay of deportation so yes in a sense they did anchor themselves here via their U.S. born kids. Glad the Supreme Court tossed it back to the lower court who had ruled that Obama had overstepped his bounderies and just recently his appeal to the Supreme Court was denied also.

Last edited by Oldglory; 10-05-2016 at 03:57 PM..

 
Old 10-05-2016, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
18,058 posts, read 10,354,091 times
Reputation: 8828
Which of course gets no one deported and in fact makes the problem worse as it prevents a few million from coming from the grey economy into the good one. That of course continues to suppress wages for both the illegals and their legal competitors.

Is that a good thing?
 
Old 10-05-2016, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Los Awesome, CA
8,653 posts, read 6,134,390 times
Reputation: 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I will look for more info, but this is what I found with a quick google search:

"No reliable data exists on the number of Chinese births in the U.S, but estimates by industry publications projected a total of 60,000 for 2014, a sixfold increase over 2012."
Born In The USA: Why Chinese 'Birth Tourism' Is Booming In California | Huffington Post
If the 60,000 figure is correct that's a lot. I was thinking that something like this probably happens only in the hundreds..
 
Old 10-05-2016, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
31,848 posts, read 17,615,406 times
Reputation: 29385
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310 View Post
If the 60,000 figure is correct that's a lot. I was thinking that something like this probably happens only in the hundreds..
That's just for Chinese anchor babies. The Mexican total is in the hundreds of thousands.
 
Old 10-05-2016, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Los Awesome, CA
8,653 posts, read 6,134,390 times
Reputation: 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1 View Post
That's just for Chinese anchor babies. The Mexican total is in the hundreds of thousands.
Most Mexicans come over pregnant and then stay. For this scenario they're having babies then leaving.
 
Old 10-05-2016, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
31,848 posts, read 17,615,406 times
Reputation: 29385
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310 View Post
Most Mexicans come over pregnant and then stay. For this scenario they're having babies then leaving.
This is true, but it's still a drain on us and as I posted a few posts back to you, our dollars could be better spent by investing in our citizens.
 
Old 10-05-2016, 04:16 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,029 posts, read 44,840,107 times
Reputation: 13715
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
It's not simply a law. It is the 14th amendment to the Constitution. That would require a Constitutional Amendment which is virtually impossible unless an overwhelming consensus is present.
No, it wouldn't.

More historical fact:

"Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution declares that "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. But the word "jurisdiction" must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them" - The Honorable George H. Williams, United State Attorney General, in 1873
https://books.google.com/books?id=3FwLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA300&lpg=PA300&dq=expatr iation+foreign+domicile+citizenship+%2B+%22must+be +understood%22&source=bl&ots=mOYQSc9VYM&sig=kc02xX KfYc4fUWHcoCi58NaKV3Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipzMj5 08TPAhVEVj4KHXh6CgkQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=expatriat ion%20foreign%20domicile%20citizenship%20%2B%20%22 must%20be%20understood%22&f=false

The intention of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. There are plenty of sources from the late 19th century citing exactly the same thing. And it has never been changed. It's only been fairly recently misinterpreted, and quite egregiously so.

The necessity of passing The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, further demonstrates that merely being born in the U.S. is insufficient to acquire birthright citizenship.
 
Old 10-05-2016, 04:33 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,029 posts, read 44,840,107 times
Reputation: 13715
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
That is not what the Court said. They said the illegal aliens were domiciled in TX. That is all that is required. Using "permanent" or "lawful" would change all that. But that is not what is required. And a domicile is permanent if the residents intent is permanent.

Wiki summasry...

*********************************
Texas officials had argued that unauthorized immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." The dissenting opinion also rejected this claim, agreeing with the Court that "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state." The dissent simply concluded that the distinction the statute drew should survive an equal protection attack.
**********************************************
I don't see any mention of "permanent domicile," which is a specification of birthright citizenship eligibility in the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

And the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act allows states to pass statutes that deny illegal alien students eligibility for in-state tuition, scholarships, or even bars them from enrollment at public colleges and universities, at all. So, no, they do not have a 14th amendment right to equal protection.
 
Old 10-05-2016, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Los Awesome, CA
8,653 posts, read 6,134,390 times
Reputation: 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1 View Post
This is true, but it's still a drain on us and as I posted a few posts back to you, our dollars could be better spent by investing in our citizens.
Fixing this issue would involve amending the constitution. I can think of constitutional amends that should be higher on the list... But with the way things are going I just don't see an constitutional amendment passing anytime soon..
 
Old 10-05-2016, 04:40 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,029 posts, read 44,840,107 times
Reputation: 13715
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
There are far more immigration statuses than Green Card holder. All of which would require a permanent domicile in the US.
"Foreign citizens who want to live permanently in the United States must first obtain an immigrant visa."

Illegal aliens don't have one.

https://travel.state.gov/content/vis...t-process.html
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:37 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top