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.
Still not linking to the Constitution? I understand.
Do you think Wikipedia is misstating the text of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Section 1. 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. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Is there a credible source on that, and to why? No Infowars, no blog site, no Breitbart. Show me where the Border Patrol were instructed high up the chain of command to let illegals pass through.
Oh, wait, so your only point of contention is that one, right? I presume you're not so deranged that you deny that we have sanctuary cities and felons convicted of violent crimes who are here illegally. Right?
Also:
USA Today affirms my statement. (P.S., before you say "this was under George Bush," George Bush was for amnesty and was opposed by the GOP, so don't bother. Unlike the left, we have no problem pointing out the flaws in our side's policies.)
Here's an ABC affiliate who says people aren't even given notices any more, from 2016. It also includes a statement directly from Border Patrol that all they do is hand out notices.
Here's the president of the National Border Patrol Council testifying that they don't even hand out notices any more, along with an order that they NOT track illegals released.
Should anchor babies with 'birthright citizenship' be deported?
Of course, they should be deported.
There are two legal doctrines at play here. The first is that you cannot profit from an illegal act, and the second is ex turpi causa non oritur actio, which means that a legal action cannot arise from a dishonorable act.
Do you think Wikipedia is misstating the text of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Neat, show me what passage you're referring to specifically that allows anchor babies. I'll wait. By the way, your magical hand-waving isn't impressing anyone.
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.
Anchor baby is US born, Dream act kid ain't US born.
There are two legal doctrines at play here. The first is that you cannot profit from an illegal act, and the second is ex turpi causa non oritur actio, which means that a legal action cannot arise from a dishonorable act.
What's illegal about "birth tourism", which results in "anchor babies"?
BTW, you're referencing a doctrine that applies to torts.
What's illegal about "birth tourism", which results in "anchor babies"?
LOL, his main argumentative style is to wonder aloud what everyone knows, as if he was just born this evening.
I've commented on how the left, unable to defend their positions, merely takes this tactic these days. Like, if you comment on Hillary's deleted emails, they just go "she deleted emails? Huh??" and then they continue with something like "she used email?? I had never heard of this!" and then later "what are emails?" until you get bored of talking to them, at which point they declare victory.
It's like the other dude I'm talking to, who is like "there are sanctuary cities? I don't believe it!!" even while elected liberal officials are declaring they will never stop being sanctuary cities. Like "can you show me where the policy is that says that there is a sanctuary city?? If not, I do not believe it!! Where was it voted on again??"
Oh, wait, so your only point of contention is that one, right? I presume you're not so deranged that you deny that we have sanctuary cities and felons convicted of violent crimes who are here illegally. Right?
Also:
USA Today affirms my statement. (P.S., before you say "this was under George Bush," George Bush was for amnesty and was opposed by the GOP, so don't bother. Unlike the left, we have no problem pointing out the flaws in our side's policies.)
Here's an ABC affiliate who says people aren't even given notices any more, from 2016. It also includes a statement directly from Border Patrol that all they do is hand out notices.
Here's the president of the National Border Patrol Council testifying that they don't even hand out notices any more, along with an order that they NOT track illegals released.
If you want me to continue, I can. But if you want me to continue, I'm also going to assume that you're clearly fine with ignoring factual evidence.
Read your articles, and now I got the full picture. It's actually very important, but you and all of you that think like you intentionally or not, leave it out of your debates. So there is no nefarious plot to flood the US with illegals. It's what I always thiight it was. We just don't have the resources and logistics to ma age so many illegals. It's not because the US government loves illegals and wants to import as many as they can
Starting with those born after January, 2017, yes.
It's our own damned fault that we turned our back on wisdom; we can damn well live with the results.
Let the door slam forever shut in Jan, 2017. And never open again.
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.
