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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.