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.
We didn't change the First Amendment when radio, TV or the internet came along, even though they aren't mentioned in the Constitution. We incorporated them.
We didn't change the Second Amendment when new weapons became avaiable either. They were covered by the spirit of the law.
The Founders didn't specify that only things specifically listed in the Constitution were covered by it, did they?
That's not what the Constitution says.
I keep hearing that.
Because that's what the Constitution says.
You sure about that one? A few million gun owners in NY, NJ, CA, MA, CT, CO would like to have a word with you.
And actually the founders said things not covering in the USC were covered by the states. If we were to go by the "constitution" then every single gun law in the US would be nullified by the "shall not be infringed" clause of the 2A. Instead we have a system were there is reasonable allowance to prevent wrongdoing that would, under the ideal, be covered by the USC. The SCOTUS and the openly rebellious lower courts decide what is within this scope, and do so lately due to politics instead of actual written law.
I agree....stripping anchor babies from their citizenship isn't going to fly. But after the law is changed, or interpreted correctly, one parent must be an American citizen in order to have their child considered a citizen as well.
That is going to cut down the illegal influx to a large degree.
You can't strip them of what they never had to begin with. Federal Nationality Law is quite clear on this. ONLY American Indian, Eskimo, Aleution, or other aboriginal tribe members are exempted from the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement (subsection (b) in the statute) for the acquisition of birthright U.S. citizenship.
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property"
This anchor baby situation is a classic slippery slope, when it comes to any government action to deal with it.
One has to ask, what is right, what is wrong, and then add the word"morally"to each of those questions.
Should children born here of illegal parents be allowed to stay because technically they are citizens?
Obviously we all have our own opinion as to how this should be handled.
So now, let's take a realistic look at the situation.
Many of these anchor babies are now young adults, who know no other country but this one, because of being born here, or arriving with illegal parents while they were very young.
Again, all they know is America.
They are as much American as I am.
Many of these young adults are embedded in the very fabric of this country by holding jobs, college educated, tax paying, looking toward the future, in the hopes of a successful life.
On the flip side of that coin, many are some of the dregs of society, with no goals in life.
Regardless of whatever life they live here, one indelible point is, they are indeed citizens of this country according to the rules we as a nation have adopted, as stated in our constitution.
If we can't, or refuse to honor our constitution, then anarchy is the only option left for us.
I don't like the idea of illegals coming to this country, and giving birth, and perhaps that is the problem that needs to be addressed by government.
Sending illegals back to where they originated from is a good idea, but then we are faced with, what to do with their American born offsprings?
Those too young to have the power of reason, should automatically be included in any deportation action of the parents, while those who are young adults, would be free to make their own decision as to what they want to do.
This I feel is the only logical conclusion to once and for all, put and end to the anchor baby debacle.
Bob.
Well written thoughtful post
Many countries like UK, Australia, NZ and European countries started to abolish birthright nationality law starting from 1980 onward. I don't see why US cannot do it. But grandfather existing babies born under the current law.
At least one parent has to be a citizen or permanent resident / legal immigrant for the child to automatically get citizenship. Otherwise they get the citizenship of one or both their parents.
Many countries like UK, Australia, NZ and European countries started to abolish birthright nationality law starting from 1980 onward. I don't see why US cannot do it. But grandfather existing babies born under the current law.
The current law does not provide birthright U.S. citizenship to anchor babies. I've discussed that at length. All we need to do is enforce the 14th Amendment and our Federal Nationality Law as it currently exists.
Any foreigners and their children can become U.S. citizens if they apply to immigrate legally, are accepted, and subsequently naturalize.
Nope, nothing in our Constitution allows for birthright citizenship to babies born from illegal alien parents. Read "Informed Consent's" comments and proof that was provided by him.
The current law does not provide birthright U.S. citizenship to anchor babies. I've discussed that at length. All we need to do is enforce the 14th Amendment and our Federal Nationality Law as it currently exists.
Any foreigners and their children can become U.S. citizens if they apply to immigrate legally, are accepted, and subsequently naturalize.
So when can we expect for you to sue the federal government in court?
Nope, nothing in our Constitution allows for birthright citizenship to babies born from illegal alien parents. Read "Informed Consent's" comments and proof that was provided by him.
Can we expect to see a lawsuit filed against the federal government anytime soon from you or him?
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.
