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?
Printable View
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?
Translation :Quote:
Originally Posted by doobs
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
Too restrictive. One is enough. It's not our right to determine why someone wants to get married.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiHeat
Translation:Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiHeat
Human trafficking will have an added incentive to raise its prices and get more women willing to allow themselves to be sold.
It would be effective after a certain date. Existing birth certificates would be honored.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurster
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
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.
Like I said, no ex post facto.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drachen
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
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.
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 doobs
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
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 CosmicCowboy
exception noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
it would be vetoed first.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
Overcoming a veto is much easier than passing a constitutional amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
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 doobs
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
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 %.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
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.
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 CosmicCowboy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
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.
what are the arguments exactly for amending the 14th amendment?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
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?