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.
People should be a citizen of the country they're born in; it's just common sense, or am I the crazy one?....
Not common sense at all, and the US is one of the few countries who have such law.
Two non-US citizens visiting the US for tourism, and all of a sudden the baby is born premature, should not automatically make that baby a citizen of the US.
If one parent is a US citizen, sure. If the parents are legal, permanent residents, sure.
Interestingly enough, it is very difficult to get proof of citizenship for a child of a single parent (mother) who is not a US citizen, and gets knocked up by a US citizen, and that US citizen ceases contact with them. There are numerous children out there who have fathers who are US citizens, but there is actual little that can be done to prove such claims.
It is a crazy law. I have seen a lot of birth tourism in my career. These people come from China, Latin America, and the Middle East to have American citizen babies. Then they go back to their countries and raise these kids in a completely different culture, but they are American citizens because their mothers came here for a month back when they were born.
What are the positives of birthright citizenship? All I see are negatives. How does birthright citizenship help Americans?
Why shouldn’t at least one parent have to be a citizen? What would be the harm in that?
The positive of birthright citizenship was in 1865 America. Many freed slaves were not exactly U.S. Citizens at the time. So to give them and any children they had and so on, was that they were given citizenship including the right to vote. I think that birthright citizenship is a little bit passé due to the intention of the constitutional amendment that enacted it. Because it was a constitutional amendment, it needs to be repealed by another constitutional amendment. IMHO I would like to see it changed too, but we need to have an amnesty period that declares anyone born in America before X is a citizen and anyone born after X will only be a citizen if one or both of the parents are. That is on top of the constitutional amendment part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220
People should be a citizen of the country they're born in; it's just common sense, or am I the crazy one?....
Most countries have citizenship mean one or both of the parents are citizens in order for their child to be a citizen. We ended that to give slaves that right and never changed it. Then again with Ellis and Angel Islands (even in the colonial and early days of our nation) we were always a nation of immigrants.
Good Ole Texas has e-Verify for public employers and contractors. It's California that won't do e-Verify, even made it against the law for a local jurisdiction to require e-Verify. Like police cooperation with ICE, the state of California not only refuses to fight illegal immigration but legislatively prohibits localities from it.
The bill in Texas didn't provide any oversight to ensure compliance and contains no penalties for failing to use e-verify. Good Ole Texas knows they need illegal immigrants to keep their economy strong so they obviously conflicted about the issue
Quote:
AUSTIN — Texas lawmakers may have beefed up border security and cracked down on so-called sanctuary cities, but private employers are hardly rushing to verify whether Texas job applicants are authorized to work here.
In a state where the non-citizen share of the population is 11 percent, fewer than one third of Texas hires — 32 percent — were screened with E-Verify for the year ending June 2017, according a recent Pew Charitable Trusts report.
Texas economist Ray Perryman in 2017 put the total net economic benefits of the state’s undocumented workforce at $290.3 billion in output (gross product) and 3.3 million jobs annually.
Smith said that his “Legal Workforce Act legislation to require universal E-Verify has been included in House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte’s Securing America’s Future Act immigration package.”
Jawetz, a former chief counsel on the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, said that while the E-Verify situation is “very volatile,” on the state level, he doesn’t see any hope for passage of Smith’s bill this term.
The bill in Texas didn't provide any oversight to ensure compliance and contains no penalties for failing to use e-verify. Good Ole Texas knows they need illegal immigrants to keep their economy strong so they obviously conflicted about the issue
Per your quote "one third of Texas hires — 32 percent — were screened with E-Verify for the year ending June 2017", tell me how that 32% compares to California? How about other Democratic states like Washington, Oregon, Illinois, New York, or Massachusets?
I'm not saying Texas is doing it right but your focus on Texas is misplaced when California has more illegals and is doing far less, in fact forbidding it.
Per your quote "one third of Texas hires — 32 percent — were screened with E-Verify for the year ending June 2017", tell me how that 32% compares to California? How about other Democratic states like Washington, Oregon, Illinois, New York, or Massachusets?
I'm not saying Texas is doing it right but your focus on Texas is misplaced when California has more illegals and is doing far less, in fact forbidding it.
Almost all states with e-verify ignore it, or have huge carve outs for 'critical occupations', or claim it's being used but never audit employers to see if it is. So I'm not buying any of it, Texas is a joke they depend on illegals and don't want to quit hiring them but they want to put on a big show about how tough they are on illegal immigrants.
Almost all states with e-verify ignore it, or have huge carve outs for 'critical occupations', or claim it's being used but never audit employers to see if it is. So I'm not buying any of it, Texas is a joke they depend on illegals and don't want to quit hiring them but they want to put on a big show about how tough they are on illegal immigrants.
Tell me about California. Why do you ignore any request for comment on California. Why do you not have anything to say about the many other Democratic states with NO E-verify at all?
I've had it with this "Texas e-verify" nonsense that liberals always pop off about when sanctuary state California is the outrage, the only state prohibiting communities from using e-Verify even if they wanted to. Every dammed time anyone mentions Texas and E-verify in the same sentence, I'm going to cut and paste the relevant stats showing Texas is at least partially implementing while California is prohibiting.
Tell me about California. Why do you ignore any request for comment on California. Why do you not have anything to say about the many other Democratic states with NO E-verify at all?
I've had it with this "Texas e-verify" nonsense that liberals always pop off about when sanctuary state California is the outrage, the only state prohibiting communities from using e-Verify even if they wanted to. Every dammed time anyone mentions Texas and E-verify in the same sentence, I'm going to cut and paste the relevant stats showing Texas is at least partially implementing while California is prohibiting.
No problem, I will tell you about California, and a few other states. In the year ending September 2018
Data reflects the total number of cases created in E-Verify for the current fiscal year.
California 3,377,393
Texas 3,343,189
Florida 2,181,024
There is no prohibition in California against using e-verify with two exceptions, only people offered a job can be screened and existing employees can't be screened unless federal law requires e-verify in those situations.
There is no prohibition in California against using e-verify with two exceptions, only people offered a job can be screened and existing employees can't be screened unless federal law requires e-verify in those situations.
Why should I talk about other democratic states and why are you making this such a big deal? geezus...
Your own link says "Most California employers are not required to use E-Verify. In 2012, it became unlawful in California for the state or a city, county, or special district to require an employer to use an electronic employment verification system, such as E-Verify. "
I'm only making a big deal about it because liberals are always whining "but Texas doesn't require e-Verify" in every immigration discussion, as if it's something advocated in Democrat states.
Your own link says "Most California employers are not required to use E-Verify. In 2012, it became unlawful in California for the state or a city, county, or special district to require an employer to use an electronic employment verification system, such as E-Verify. "
I'm only making a big deal about it because liberals are always whining "but Texas doesn't require e-Verify" in every immigration discussion, as if it's something advocated in Democrat states.
Not requiring it is not the same as not allowing it, geezus... I know that it can be used because I have family who own farms in California and they use e-verify.
Not requiring it is not the same as not allowing it, geezus... I know that it can be used because I have family who own farms in California and they use e-verify.
What part of "became unlawful" is not clear?
I didn't say it wasn't allowed to be used but communities are barred by law from requiring it. For instance, your family can use e-verify but the county govt in which your farm resides cannot require it to be used. In short, California is not just saying "we don't want to require e-verify" but taking it a step further and saying "and localities can't require it either".
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.
