Anchor Babies and amending the 14th amendment

Pick a side bitches.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40855.html

Again, pure rabble-rousing, bubba-inflaming campaign noise.

Takes 37 states and YEARS to modify the Constitution. And 100s of $Ms govt spending. What spending cuts do the Repugs propose to offset the Constitutional change?

The anchor babies are an easy target. The discussion about fixing immigration is for some mysterious reason absent any concrete, workable proposals from Repugs. Changing the Constitution isn't workable, it's pure politics.

And if they can make retroactive back to babies of black slaves, then the Repugs will sweep all the Southern/border/rural states. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Again, pure rabble-rousing, bubba-inflaming campaign noise.
Changing the Constitution isn't workable, it's pure politics.

---

It's been done 27 times...

Next?

When was the last time? The ERA fiasco?

Also, the case has been made that the change could be done with congressional legislation and doesn't require amending the amendment.

Quote:

---

The granting of automatic citizenship comes from a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. It was drafted after the Civil War to guarantee that the recently freed slaves gained full citizenship rights. When it was enacted in 1868, there were no illegal immigrants in the United States because there were no immigration laws until 1875. So drafters of the Amendment could not have intended to benefit those in our country illegally.

There are three reasons why Congress can and should act:

1. No Supreme Court case has dealt directly with the offspring of illegal immigrants and the question of automatic citizenship.

2. The Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to decide national immigration policies.

3. During the debate on the 14th Amendment in 1866, the senator who was the author said it would “not of course include persons born in the United States who are foreigners ...”

---

This doesn't fix the immigration problem AT ALL.

Thanks for playing. The rabble is wonderfully roused.

For this, no ex post facto though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

This doesn't fix the immigration problem AT ALL.

Thanks for playing. The rabble is wonderfully roused.

---

Did I say it fixed the immigration problem?

Pay attention dumbfuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

This doesn't fix the immigration problem AT ALL.

Thanks for playing. The rabble is wonderfully roused.

---

I am also ok with making immigration policy changes at the same time, however to imply that this does nothing to fix immigration is disingenuous at best considering it removes at least one motivation for coming over.

More about the origin of the citizenship clause...(from Wikipedia)

Quote:

---

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[5] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[6] Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[6] and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.[7][8][6] Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[9] supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States.
In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether birth in the United States automatically extended national citizenship. The Supreme Court held that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship.[10]
The clause's meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The Court ruled that children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants possessed national citizenship by being born in United States.[11]
The difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[12] Wong Kim Ark and subsequent cases did not explicitly decide whether such children are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[13] but such birthright is generally assumed to be the case.[14] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), and INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985).[15][16][17]
Loss of national citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:
Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically, this is not loss of citizenship but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a United States citizen.
Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions that demonstrate desire to give up national citizenship.[18]
For much of the country's history, voluntary acquisition or exercise of a foreign citizenship was considered sufficient cause for revocation of national citizenship.[19] This concept was enshrined in a series of treaties between the United States and other countries (the Bancroft Treaties). However, the Supreme Court repudiated this concept in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), as well as Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), holding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred the Congress from revoking citizenship.

---

Problem is, there are so many hispanic voters now, that politicians might pussy out instead of doing the right thing and fixing this problem.

Some of the most hard core supporters, the ones that actually begin cussing when talking about this, that I know are hispanic. Second or third generation legal immigrants to be exact. However this is probably unsurprising since I live in a predominately Hispanic city. The oppsite is probably also true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Problem is, there are so many hispanic voters now, that politicians might pussy out instead of doing the right thing and fixing this problem.

---

The problem IMHO is that people automatically assume that Hispanics that are citizens and/or here legally are automatically going to knee jerk like Manny and support the illegal aliens no matter what because it is the "progressive" thing to do. There are a lot of conservative Hispanic citizens.

I'm on board if we also take steps to grant legal citizenship more easily. The whole process needs an overhaul, and this is only a small piece of what needs to be done.

Next step?

Institute LARGE financial penalties for any business that employs illegals. The fine is for each infraction (employee), so the fine stacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

I'm on board if we also take steps to grant legal citizenship more easily. The whole process needs an overhaul, and this is only a small piece of what needs to be done.

---

Why must we change that?

What, do we have to take in every single human who wants to come here and fit them into the USA?

Is that your view?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Why must we change that?

What, do we have to take in every single human who wants to come here and fit them into the USA?

Is that your view?

---

I'm definitely OK with an expanded work visa program as long as there is a baseline tax to play.

it's an empty promise to get people to vote republican in november. they'll use it for votes, and drop the idea after the elections. kind of like reagan did when he made implicit promises to bring back school prayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

it's an empty promise to get people to vote republican in november. they'll use it for votes, and drop the idea after the elections. kind of like reagan did when he made implicit promises to bring back school prayer.

---

Yeah that too.

So expanded work visa program, "fixing" the 14th amendment (through leg. or whatever), big BIG stackable fines for hiring illegal immigrants. Are these things acceptable to most? Regardless of if either party can/will push it through? I would think that if you do the first, you almost HAVE to do the second, right?

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Might not be necessary to amend the Constitution. Limit birthright citizenship to American-born children who have at least one parent who is a citizen or a permanent resident.

The argument for conferring automatic citizenship on children born to Mexican illegals is surely stronger than the argument for conferring automatic citizenship on children born to South Korean women on a tourist visa. That is a scam, pure and simple.

This seems like an excellent way for the GOP to appear racist and lose votes.

Any implementation of this would be a disaster. For over 200 years, a birth certificate has been sufficient to prove citizenship. If you are a natural-born citizen, probably almost all other evidence that you are a citizen can be traced back to your birth certificate. You pull that away and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. A large number of current procedures will have to modified and debugged, and our immigration agencies will become even more dysfunctional. You'll have to prove that one of your parents is a citizen, and to do that you'll have to prove that one of that parent's parents is a citizen, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Might not be necessary to amend the Constitution. Limit birthright citizenship to American-born children who have at least one parent who is a citizen or a permanent resident.

---

any individual, regardless of citizenship, that is physically present in this country is subject to the jurisdiction of this country.

"scare white people tactics"

move along.

Foriegn diplomats usually aren't, OG. I've heard it said that that's what the "subject to the jurisdiction" language refers to, but haven't yet checked that claim for myself.

Any observations on this, doobs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Might not be necessary to amend the Constitution. Limit birthright citizenship to American-born children who have at least one parent who is a citizen or a permanent resident.

---

Translation :

Illegals going on dates looking for american citizens to trap with a pregnancy. We usually don't like to tear a father/mother away from a newborn/family.

Or American men offering to impregnate/marry illegal women so they can stay - maybe they do it for money, or for sexual abuse. many reasons.

Might be better to require both parents to be legal residents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Translation :

Illegals going on dates looking for american citizens to trap with a pregnancy.

Or American men offering to impregnate/marry illegal women so they can stay - maybe they do it for money, or for sexual abuse. many reasons.

Might be better to require both parents to be legal residents

---

Too restrictive. One is enough. It's not our right to determine why someone wants to get married.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Translation :

Illegals going on dates looking for american citizens to trap with a pregnancy. We usually don't like to tear a father/mother away from a newborn/family.

Or American men offering to impregnate/marry illegal women so they can stay - maybe they do it for money, or for sexual abuse. many reasons.

Might be better to require both parents to be legal residents

---

Translation:

Human trafficking will have an added incentive to raise its prices and get more women willing to allow themselves to be sold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurster

This seems like an excellent way for the GOP to appear racist and lose votes.

Any implementation of this would be a disaster. For over 200 years, a birth certificate has been sufficient to prove citizenship. If you are a natural-born citizen, probably almost all other evidence that you are a citizen can be traced back to your birth certificate. You pull that away and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. A large number of current procedures will have to modified and debugged, and our immigration agencies will become even more dysfunctional. You'll have to prove that one of your parents is a citizen, and to do that you'll have to prove that one of that parent's parents is a citizen, etc.

---

It would be effective after a certain date. Existing birth certificates would be honored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Too restrictive. One is enough. It's not our right to determine why someone wants to get married.

---

Agreed, plus if they deport the father, then the mother can still stay here with the child. Currently, if they deport the parents then the child has to go with them, or go to something like foster care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

It would be effective after a certain date. Existing birth certificates would be honored.

---

Like I said, no ex post facto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

So expanded work visa program, "fixing" the 14th amendment (through leg. or whatever), big BIG stackable fines for hiring illegal immigrants. Are these things acceptable to most? Regardless of if either party can/will push it through? I would think that if you do the first, you almost HAVE to do the second, right?

---

I could live with something along those lines but according to the progressive circle jerkers in here I'm a racist bigot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Foriegn diplomats usually aren't, OG. I've heard it said that that's what the "subject to the jurisdiction" language refers to, but haven't yet checked that claim for myself.

Any observations on this, doobs?

---

It is clear that the children of foreign diplomats are not guaranteed automatic citizenship by the Citizenship Clause. It is also clear that the children of permanent legal residents are guaranteed automatic citizenship by the Citizenship Clause.

What is not clear is whether the children of illegal immigrants have such a constitutional right. Congress has long extended automatic citizenship to them as a matter of legislative grace, so the courts have not had occasion to decide the issue.

According to wikipedia, this is what the US Attorney General had to say 5 years after the adoption of the Citizenship Clause: "The word 'jurisdiction' must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them."

Whatever the answer is, I would prefer Congress to take a crack at it, since there already is arguable justification to limit birthright citizenship. I'd rather put off constitutional amendment until it's absolutely necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

It is clear that the children of foreign diplomats are not guaranteed automatic citizenship by the Citizenship Clause. It is also clear that the children of permanent legal residents are guaranteed automatic citizenship by the Citizenship Clause.

What is not clear is whether the children of illegal immigrants have such a constitutional right. Congress has long extended automatic citizenship to them as a matter of law, so we have not had the occasion for the courts to decide the issue.

According to wikipedia, this is what the US Attorney General had to say 5 years after the adoption of the Citizenship Clause: "The word 'jurisdiction' must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them."

Whatever the answer is, I would prefer Congress to take a crack at it, since there already is arguable justification to limit birthright citizenship. I'd rather put of constitutional amendment until it's absolutely necessary.

---

Agreed. I think it could be re-defined in Congress. Naturally someone would sue and the Supreme Court would eventually have to affirm/deny the change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I could live with something along those lines but according to the progressive circle jerkers in here I'm a racist bigot.

---

Speaking of the Progressive Circle Jerkers, where are they? With the exception of Croutons they have been notably silent in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I could live with something along those lines but according to the progressive circle jerkers in here I'm a racist bigot.

---

To me it seems that this is a bit of a compromise (I know that this has become a dirty word to both sides). It has an expanded visa program (which seems like a liberal goal), a stop to the anchor babies (which is definately a conservative goal), and major penalties for businesses hiring them (which I have heard being suggested from both sides).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Foriegn diplomats usually aren't, OG. I've heard it said that that's what the "subject to the jurisdiction" language refers to, but haven't yet checked that claim for myself.

---

exception noted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Agreed. I think it could be re-defined in Congress. Naturally someone would sue and the Supreme Court would eventually have to affirm/deny the change.

---

it would be vetoed first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

it would be vetoed first.

---

Good point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

it would be vetoed first.

---

Overcoming a veto is much easier than passing a constitutional amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

Overcoming a veto is much easier than passing a constitutional amendment.

---

Since it's not a spending/new legislation bill but just a clarification of immigration law (which congress clearly has authority over) would it have to go to the President? Congress signs resolutions all the time that don't go to executive...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Since it's not a spending/new legislation bill but just a clarification of immigration law (which congress clearly has authority over) would it have to go to the President? Congress signs resolutions all the time that don't go to executive...

---

That "clarification" would be a substantive change to the law. It would be a new law and it would have to be presented to Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

The problem IMHO is that people automatically assume that Hispanics that are citizens and/or here legally are automatically going to knee jerk like Manny and support the illegal aliens no matter what because it is the "progressive" thing to do. There are a lot of conservative Hispanic citizens.

---

yes, but even in states like arizona where there is strong support for measures made to stop illegal immigration, the support amongst hispanics is only at about 30 %.

latinos vary politically but amongst mexican americans their conservative tendencies tend to be more religious based or focused on the military. when it comes to illegal immigration, mexican americans tend to be more opposed to measures that conservatives would endorse.

mexican americans are certainly not naive to the degree of anti-hispanic sentiment they can be subjected to when it comes to stereotypes regarding their culture and heritage, and they tend to be very loyal to their tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Pick a side bitches.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40855.html

---

I side against it. The whole "citizenship through birth" process has played out for a few hundred years, and our country seems to have survived. I guess I'm taking the "conservative" view of things though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Foriegn diplomats usually aren't, OG. I've heard it said that that's what the "subject to the jurisdiction" language refers to, but haven't yet checked that claim for myself.

Any observations on this, doobs?

---

That is what it's referring to. During that debate, they brought up the idea of a "gypsy" family, ie. one without national ties. And since the majority there voted on the 14th Amendment as it stands today, without voting in any kind of amendment barring citizenship through birth, I'm assuming that they wanted the citizenship process as it stands today. WC and I went through this awhile back in an old thread, where I found the debate.

This link gives a good summary:

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.c...nth-amendment/

Quote:

---

Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:
The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.

---

Quote:

---

Of course, the phrase “subject to jurisdiction” must mean something. Otherwise, it would serve no purpose. Under the interpretation I put forth, it does serve a purpose. The “jurisdiction” requirement excludes only those individuals who are not required to obey U.S. law. This concept—like much of early U.S. law—derives from English common law.8 Under the common law, neither foreign diplomats nor enemy soldiers are legally required to obey our law. They enjoy diplomatic immunity or combatant immunity from our laws. As a result, their U.S.-born offspring are not entitled to birthright citizenship.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Pick a side bitches.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40855.html

---

what are the arguments exactly for amending the 14th amendment?

I didn't realize we had such a bad anchor baby epidemic.

How many anchor babies are there? for the 10M+ illegals?

So if the xenophobes get the 14th Amendment amended, what problem does it solve?

How many illegals come to the US to make babies, since is the only justification offered for killing-the-anchor-baby change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Next step?

Institute LARGE financial penalties for any business that employs illegals. The fine is for each infraction (employee), so the fine stacks.

---

That should be the first step.

That's much easier done than a constitutional amendment.

Seems anchor bambinos electioneering is splitting the Repugs and other right-wing assholes:

"NAPOLITANO: No! That would not be a a way around it. There is no way to get around the 14th amendment. These people took an oath to uphold the Constitution whether they agree with it or not! All of it not part of it! The Supreme Court has said you cannot take privileges or benefits away from a child because of a crime committed by the parent. Therefore everybody born here is an American citizen, no matter what their parents’ status was at their birth. "

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/10/fox-slams-gop-14th/

Rubio/Florida is also against changing the 14th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That should be the first step.

That's much easier done than a constitutional amendment.

---

Basically.

Good luck getting 2/3 of the votes and 3/4 of the states to ratify something like the modified amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Basically.

Good luck getting 2/3 of the votes and 3/4 of the states to ratify something like the modified amendment.

---

which is why the Republicans are dangling the carrot (well you know, it may be possible with enough Republicans in Congress to just create a statute instead of actually amending the constitution--even though we know we really can't and won't even attempt it) to get those disillusioned right wingers back in the fold and voting Republican instead of 3rd party. They may pick up a few seats that they want, and then drop the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

what are the arguments exactly for amending the 14th amendment?

I didn't realize we had such a bad anchor baby epidemic.

---

As bad as the gay marriage one, apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

How many anchor babies are there? for the 10M+ illegals?

So if the xenophobes get the 14th Amendment amended, what problem does it solve?

How many illegals come to the US to make babies, since is the only justification offered for killing-the-anchor-baby change?

---

Nobody has any facts? Not even any reasonable estimates?

QED: just more racist/xenophobic rabble-rousing electioneering by the right-wing noise machine.

btw, "just-enforcement" is a huge-money spinner for the Prison Industrial Complex (and its lobbyists), and well as a huge money saver for business and individuals exploiting cheap labor. That's the kind of stimulus business-friendly Repugs will always support. :lol

That's why the Repugs don't really want the immigration problem solved and haven't put forward any workable proposals. Immigration is a huge, divisive xenophobic fringe-vote getter for the Repugs. Why would they ever want that problem solved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Nobody has any facts? Not even any reasonable estimates?

QED: just more racist/xenophobic rabble-rousing electioneering by the right-wing noise machine.

btw, "just-enforcement" is a huge-money spinner for the Prison Industrial Complex (and its lobbyists), and well as a huge money saver for business and individuals exploiting cheap labor. That's the kind of stimulus business-friendly Repugs will always support. :lol

That's why the Repugs don't really want the immigration problem solved and haven't put forward any workable proposals. Immigration is a huge, divisive xenophobic fringe-vote getter for the Repugs. Why would they ever want that problem solved?

---

About 60,000 a year in Texas alone. As an example, last year at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, 11,071 babies were born to women who were noncitizens, about 74 percent of Parkland's total deliveries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

About 60,000 a year in Texas alone. As an example, last year at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, 11,071 babies were born to women who were noncitizens, about 74 percent of Parkland's total deliveries.

---

Non citizens doesn't equal illegal immigrants... do you have a figure for illegal immigrants?

What I find HILARIOUS about the this issue is that the those who are floating this idea are attempting to read the 14th amendment in it's totality to make thier case. Furthering the idea that the framers didn't intend to allow the anchor baby issue...

yet when it comes to the second amendment these same people want to only read the first part of the sentence and use the partial statement to make their case...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Non citizens doesn't equal illegal immigrants... do you have a figure for illegal immigrants?

---

I'm sure they would if they could legally ask but I seriously doubt pregnant women in Japan are lining up to fly to Dallas Texas to be born in Dallas's overcrowded County Hospital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

What I find HILARIOUS about the this issue is that the those who are floating this idea are attempting to read the 14th amendment in it's totality to make thier case. Furthering the idea that the framers didn't intend to allow the anchor baby issue...

yet when it comes to the second amendment these same people want to only read the first part of the sentence and use the partial statement to make their case...

---

Capital H HILARIOUS? Glad to see you are so easily amused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I'm sure they would if they could legally ask but I seriously doubt pregnant women in Japan are lining up to fly to Dallas Texas to be born in Dallas's overcrowded County Hospital.

---

Being a legal resident is not exclusive to japanese people.
I'm a legal resident myself, and if we were to have a baby with my wife then we would be having it here in the US.

Do you think a legal japanese resident would fly back to Japan to have their babies if they live here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Capital H HILARIOUS? Glad to see you are so easily amused.

---

hypocrisy is a funny thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

What I find HILARIOUS about the this issue is that the those who are floating this idea are attempting to read the 14th amendment in it's totality to make thier case. Furthering the idea that the framers didn't intend to allow the anchor baby issue...

yet when it comes to the second amendment these same people want to only read the first part of the sentence and use the partial statement to make their case...

---

OT, but a good point nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

hypocrisy is a funny thing

---

The reference to capital letters was intentional.

You were just too fucking stupid to get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Being a legal resident is not exclusive to japanese people.
I'm a legal resident myself, and if we were to have a baby with my wife then we would be having it here in the US.

Do you think a legal japanese resident would fly back to Japan to have their babies if they live here?

---

They damn sure wouldn't have it at Parkland and I certainly hope your wife wouldn't either.

So ElDumbshit, you asked for numbers and I gave you numbers. You now want to split hairs and say "well maybe a few of those weren't illegal" Fine. A few of them probably weren't.

Would you agree that a large majority probably were?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

The reference to capital letters was intentional.

You were just too fucking stupid to get it.

---

You're not smart enough to test me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That should be the first step.

That's much easier done than a constitutional amendment.

---

Exactly. Starve the problem. Fine the living hell outta the companies/citizens that employ illegals. Ocam's Razor agrees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Nobody has any facts? Not even any reasonable estimates?

QED: just more racist/xenophobic rabble-rousing electioneering by the right-wing noise machine.

btw, "just-enforcement" is a huge-money spinner for the Prison Industrial Complex (and its lobbyists), and well as a huge money saver for business and individuals exploiting cheap labor. That's the kind of stimulus business-friendly Repugs will always support. :lol

That's why the Repugs don't really want the immigration problem solved and haven't put forward any workable proposals. Immigration is a huge, divisive xenophobic fringe-vote getter for the Repugs. Why would they ever want that problem solved?

---

It's really not hard to find. .03 seconds with teh google.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...es-birthright/


According to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center, a think tank that has done extensive research on immigration policy, 3.8 million undocumented immigrants have at least one child who is a citizen. "Most children of unauthorized immigrants -- 73 percent in 2008 -- are U.S. citizens by birth," the center says. That's up from 63 percent in 2003.

These statistics suggest not only that the number is large, but is also growing.

To offer a concrete example, we found a 2006 article from the Dallas Morning News about Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, a safety-net facility for poor residents. As many of 70 percent of the roughly 16,000 women giving birth annually at the hospital were immigrants who were in the U.S. illegally, according to one survey cited in the story.

http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=107


It's not an insignificant number nor an insignificant issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Being a legal resident is not exclusive to japanese people.
I'm a legal resident myself, and if we were to have a baby with my wife then we would be having it here in the US.

Do you think a legal japanese resident would fly back to Japan to have their babies if they live here?

---

Ever been to Parkland? You can bet your ass they'd have their babies somewhere else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

They damn sure wouldn't have it at Parkland and I certainly hope your wife wouldn't either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Ever been to Parkland? You can bet your ass they'd have their babies somewhere else.

---

I want to point out that I have not been to Parkland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I want to point out that I have not been to Parkland.

---

My younger brother was in a horrible accident in San Angelo a few weeks ago. They air lifted him to Parkland.
That place is an effin' study in chaos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

It's really not hard to find. .03 seconds with teh google.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...es-birthright/


According to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center, a think tank that has done extensive research on immigration policy, 3.8 million undocumented immigrants have at least one child who is a citizen. "Most children of unauthorized immigrants -- 73 percent in 2008 -- are U.S. citizens by birth," the center says. That's up from 63 percent in 2003.

These statistics suggest not only that the number is large, but is also growing.

To offer a concrete example, we found a 2006 article from the Dallas Morning News about Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, a safety-net facility for poor residents. As many of 70 percent of the roughly 16,000 women giving birth annually at the hospital were immigrants who were in the U.S. illegally, according to one survey cited in the story.

http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=107


It's not an insignificant number nor an insignificant issue.

---

What are the proven negatives of these numbers/stats/facts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

What are the proven negatives of these numbers/stats/facts?

---

I dunno. Posters were asking for numbers and I just looked them up and posted them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

So ElDumbshit, you asked for numbers and I gave you numbers. You now want to split hairs and say "well maybe a few of those weren't illegal" Fine. A few of them probably weren't.

Would you agree that a large majority probably were?

---

I asked for numbers of illegal immigrants having babies there, you certainly didn't provide that. The reason I pointed it out, however, is that sometimes stuff like that gets lost in translation when you hear the moaning and bitching.

Not all non-citizens are illegals. Some of us actually went through a pretty tough process and paid all the frigging fees to do things right, so it's really aggravating when idiots like you puts us in the same bag as those that did not.

I don't really know if the large majority were illegal or not. But if that's the problem, then have ICE sitting in the front door of the hospital (much like they do in domestic airports across the border), and a large part of your problem will go away. You don't need to change the constitution to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

What are the proven negatives of these numbers/stats/facts?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

I dunno. Posters were asking for numbers and I just looked them up and posted them.

---

Do I need to go find those too?:wakeup

To clarify, my point isn't that anchor babies don't exist. But there are ways to minimize them by simply enforcing the law as it's currently written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

To clarify, my point isn't that anchor babies don't exist. But there are ways to minimize them by simply enforcing the law as it's currently written.

---

Perhaps. The devil's in the details....or enforcement in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Perhaps. The devil's in the details....or enforcement in this case.

---

As in Chump's position on fining companies that hire illegals....isn't there already legislation on the books that codify this very thing?

But enforcement, well, that's a whole different concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

I dunno. Posters were asking for numbers and I just looked them up and posted them.

---

Gotcha.

I was really asking anyone in general. The OP said "pick a side bitches" and I'm still wondering what all of the main arguments for amending the 14th amendment are.

So far we have "there are a lot of anchor babies being born at Parkland hospital."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I asked for numbers of illegal immigrants having babies there, you certainly didn't provide that. The reason I pointed it out, however, is that sometimes stuff like that gets lost in translation when you hear the moaning and bitching.

Not all non-citizens are illegals. Some of us actually went through a pretty tough process and paid all the frigging fees to do things right, so it's really aggravating when idiots like you puts us in the same bag as those that did not.

I don't really know if the large majority were illegal or not. But if that's the problem, then have ICE sitting in the front door of the hospital (much like they do in domestic airports across the border), and a large part of your problem will go away. You don't need to change the constitution to do that.

---

:tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

Gotcha.

I was really asking anyone in general. The OP said "pick a side bitches" and I'm still wondering what all of the main arguments for amending the 14th amendment are.

So far we have "there are a lot of anchor babies being born at Parkland hospital."

---

Yeah, I'm trying to place a dog in this fight, but honestly, I'm just all over the place on this issue.:depressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Non citizens doesn't equal illegal immigrants... do you have a figure for illegal immigrants?

---

This is true.

I would suspect at least 75% of that number would be illegal immigrants. Still, it would be nice to have an actual separation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

This is true.

I would suspect at least 75% of that number would be illegal immigrants. Still, it would be nice to have an actual separation.

---

Why would it be nice to have a separate number? What is the cut off for you that would make this a non-issue?

For those looking for numbers, here ya go.

Link

CNN) -- One of about every 12 babies born in the United States in 2008 was the offspring of unauthorized immigrants, a Pew Hispanic Center study released Wednesday concluded.

According to the study, an estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in this country that year had parents who were in the United States without legal documentation.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that those children automatically become U.S. citizens, but some members of Congress are pushing to change that provision. That effort -- rooted in the debate over illegal immigration, particularly of people from Mexico -- has created some controversy.

"This has got a lot of attention in the past weeks," said Jeffrey S. Passel, the study's author. "The idea was just to put a number on it."

According to the study, 79 percent of the 5.1 million children of unauthorized immigrants in the United States were born in this country, making them U.S. citizens.

Nearly one of four children born in the United States in 2008 had parents who were immigrants, the Pew study found. Of those, 16 percent of the parents were legal immigrants and 8 percent were in the United States without proper documentation.

Many of those children are Latino, Passel said.

More than three-fourths of all unauthorized immigrants in the United States in March 2009 were Latinos, the researcher said. And nearly one of every four children under age 18 in the nation was a Hispanic.

That trend is likely to continue, the study concludes.

"Overall, Hispanics who live in the U.S. have higher rates of fertility than do whites, blacks or Asians," the report states. "And among Hispanics, the foreign born have higher rates of fertility than the native born."

Immigration reform has become a hot-button issue this political season. Arizona passed a law in April that required all immigrants to carry documentation of legal status and other states are considering similar measure even though major parts of the Arizona law were struck down last month in federal court.

"The country is really emotionally torn over this," U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said recently on CNN.

The government estimates there are more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Proponents of stricter immigration enforcement and control point to the large number of Latinos having babies in the United States as reason to change the 14th Amendment. The proponents say these children, which they often call "anchor babies," qualify for welfare and other programs and make it harder to deport their parents

"Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency," says an organization called The American Resistance, which has described itself as "a coalition of immigration crime fighters opposing illegal and undocumented immigration."

Under the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, the child may sponsor other family members for entry into the United States when he or she reaches the age of 21.

The group notes that "the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently freed slaves." The intent of the amendment "was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense," The American Resistance says on its website.

Having a child become an automatic U.S. citizen can provide immigrants with another reason to come to this nation illegally, some critics say.

"I think we need to look at that in the future as to whether or not we want to change that because I think it's an incentive to break the law," said Graham, the U.S. senator.

Texas state Rep. Debbie Riddle, a Republican, pointed out another concern on CNN's "AC 360" program Tuesday night. Some pregnant women from other countries are traveling to the United States to give birth and then taking their babies back home to raise them as terrorists that would return to attack America, she said.

Information for that "sinister issue," Riddle said, is coming from from former FBI officials she declined to name.

"This is something that is being talked about by various members of Congress," she said.

State Rep. Rafael Anchia, a Democrat, disputed the claim, calling it "the myth of anchor babies."

"For that to rise to some sort of national security concern is really unsubstantiated," Anchia said. "The 9/11 bombers were all here legally. The Times Square bomber was a naturalized citizen. He was not an anchor baby."

Anchia also disputed the contention that having a baby in the United States hinders the deportation process.

"The law does not bear that out," he said. "Just because you have a child here doesn't mean you can't be deported tomorrow."

Despite all the heat, a majority of Americans seem to oppose changing the 14th Amendment. A nationwide poll conducted in June by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that 56 percent of Americans are against changing the citizenship provision while 41 percent favor amending it.

The Pew Hispanic Center is a nonpartisan research organization that does not take positions on policy issues.

"Americans seem to oppose changing the 14th Amendment."

Well, there ya go. There goes your 37 states NOT ratifying amending an amendment, if it ever got out of Congress.

Fourteenthers, and "original" Thirteenthers, etc, etc, ad nauseam are just trivial Repug/fringe machine noise distracting the real American problems, and distracting from the blatant fact that Repugs and accomplices offer no solutions for immigration reform.

Now, can we get back to terrorist fist bumps, and birth certs? Gotta get them niggas out of the WHITE fucking HOUSE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Americans seem to oppose changing the 14th Amendment."

Well, there ya go. There goes your 37 states NOT ratifying amending an amendment, if it ever got out of Congress.

Fourteenthers, and "original" Thirteenthers, etc, etc, ad nauseam are just trivial Repug/fringe machine noise distracting the real American problems, and distracting from the blatant fact that Repugs and accomplices offer no solutions for immigration reform.

Now, can we get back to terrorist fist bumps, and birth certs? Gotta get them niggas out of the WHITE fucking HOUSE.

---

I would be "for" the fixing of this situation (whether through legislation or amendment) as I have said prior in this thread, and I am sure if you look around the forum, that you will notice that I am neither a neo-con, or Repug, or whatever other juvenile insults you can cut and paste (yes I have already been called a libtard and got on their case for that idiocy too).

Is this low-hanging fruit? Yep, but low hanging fruit is easily picked. I do however agree that this isn't the "immigration reform" that everyone has been waiting for, but think that it should be a part of a more comprehensive package. We were talking about it above in the thread and I thought it was a decent compromise. Maybe I was wrong.

So yes, this particular thing, in and of itself, would seem to be a distraction, but as a part of a broader conversation regarding immigration reform, I don't see it as such.

"low-hanging fruit"

37 states ratifying, or even getting it to Congressional vote, is low-hanging fruit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"low-hanging fruit"

37 states ratifying, or even getting it to Congressional vote, is low-hanging fruit?

---

Well, it could first be done through legislation, the let the courts take up the case. If they rule against it, then que sera sera. It will, obviously, at that point not be low hanging fruit.

"first be done through legislation"

Repugs couldn't get enough Dems to turn off Latino voters by supporting changing the amendment only through Congressional action. ain't gonna happen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"first be done through legislation"

Repugs couldn't get enough Dems to turn off Latino voters by supporting changing the amendment only through Congressional action. ain't gonna happen

---

Ok, ain't going to happen, I do, however, think that it should happen. I also think that, although it would be a calculated risk, you could probably convince some democrats if there was some kind of seasonal worker visa provision in the bill (expanded work visas as noted above). Additionally, dems like to be seen as tough on Big Business so big penalties for those hiring illegals (especially after the expanded work visa program) could help to offset some of the votes they lose via nixing the anchor baby part of the bill.

The supreme Court interprets the constitution all the time.

Maybe it's time for a legal challenge to the interpretation of the 14th while Roberts is still Chief Justice.

Do it in Texas and it would have a decent chance of clearing the 5th district.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

The supreme Court interprets the constitution all the time.
Maybe it's time for a legal challenge to the interpretation of the 14th while Roberts is still Chief Justice.

---

LOL, this is probably the only thing it says on their job description.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

The supreme Court interprets the constitution all the time.

Maybe it's time for a legal challenge to the interpretation of the 14th while Roberts is still Chief Justice.

Do it in Texas and it would have a decent chance of clearing the 5th district.

---

The 14th Amendment does not prevent Congress from conferring citizenship onto American-born children of illegal immigrants. I'm not sure what the basis of a "challenge" would be.

The only way the courts will sniff this is if Congress first restricts birthright citizenship.

I think that the challenge would have to be something like this lawyer guy is challenging the citizenship of this baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

The 14th Amendment does not prevent Congress from conferring citizenship onto American-born children of illegal immigrants. I'm not sure what the basis of a "challenge" would be.

The only way the courts will sniff this is if Congress first restricts birthright citizenship.

---

Or someone, anyway. Maybe if a state refused to issue birth certificates. I'm not saying that would be the best way to approach it but it could be a possibility.

Arizona: "I'm your huckleberry"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Or someone, anyway. Maybe if a state refused to issue birth certificates. I'm not saying that would be the best way to approach it but it could be a possibility.

---

How could they do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

How could they do that?

---

It would probably be more like issuing a different birth certificate. Something like a birth cert with all of the normal info, and "NON-CITIZEN" printed across the top.

I don't know, this is just theoretical.