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.
I didn't want to create thread drift on No More Anchor Babies?? so I opened this thread. I have an interesting idea for dealing with the problem of 14th Amendment birthright babies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke
Unborn children do not get here by themselves.
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.
I would say that if the parent or parents are here illegally then they fall under the jurisdiction of their native country and so the baby isn't eligible for birth right citizenship. Amend the 14th to reflect the needs of our country over the needs of the criminals here illegally.
I didn't want to create thread drift. I have an interesting idea for dealing with the problem of 14th Amendment birthright babies. The 14th Amendment states:
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 bor 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.
It isn't as heartless as it sounds. The parents can always keep their children; by returning to where they should be.
I'm only in favor of option 1. I'm second generation - both sides of my family came here legally. I'm okay with immigration, I'm not in favor of illegal entry or the acceptance of refugees.
I'm also against any automatic giveaways to certain groups just arriving.
I didn't want to create thread drift. I have an interesting idea for dealing with the problem of 14th Amendment birthright babies. The 14th Amendment states:
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 bor 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.
It isn't as heartless as it sounds. The parents can always keep their children; by returning to where they should be.
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.
The vast majority of countries do not award birthright citizenship.
This is not groundbreaking stuff.
US is being taken for a ride.
And I am legal first generation immigrant myself from a third world hell hole.
you are correct sir.
the fourteenth amendment was never intended to function as it does now to admit anchor babies and their parents. it was to protect the rights of American-born ex-slaves.
I would say that if the parent or parents are here illegally then they fall under the jurisdiction of their native country and so the baby isn't eligible for birth right citizenship. Amend the 14th to reflect the needs of our country over the needs of the criminals here illegally.
The problem is the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The decision states in relevant part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.S. Supreme Court
Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
**************
The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for, by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people," and any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.
Thus the parents may have some difficult choices to make, but so be it. They had the option to not be here when the mother went into labor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golimar
The vast majority of countries do not award birthright citizenship.
This is not groundbreaking stuff.
US is being taken for a ride.
And I am legal first generation immigrant myself from a third world hell hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1
I'm only in favor of option 1. I'm second generation - both sides of my family came here legally. I'm okay with immigration, I'm not in favor of illegal entry or the acceptance of refugees.
I'm also against any automatic giveaways to certain groups just arriving.
I generally agree and I think I proposed a workable solution. I don't think though that "Option 2" can be excluded since the baby is definitely a U.S. citizen at birth.
the fourteenth amendment was never intended to function as it does now to admit anchor babies and their parents. it was to protect the rights of American-born ex-slaves.
The 14th Amendment can be construed literally, to protect the babies but not the parents. That is my "modest proposal." See Jonathan Swift short story for the etiology of that term.
I don't think birthright citizenship is good for any Country and it's interesting to see that it is unique to the Americas. I would not want to see the law changed retroactively, but I definitely support a prospective application. I don't think an option of going home and leaving your kid here is feasible, we don't even have enough foster homes for kids born of citizens. But the bigger problem is that if it requires an amendment to the constitution to change it, it probably won't happen.
The Solution is to go the same route as almost every other modern country and have a requirement of one parent being a legal citizen. What we have now amounts to a bums rush from all over the globe to have babies in the US. The "Death train" train from central America was the ultimate example of our screwed up system.
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.
