More states may target birthright citizenship..aka..Anchor babies

[IronWing]

so what other country in the world allows such lunacy i.e. automatic citizenship when the parents are criminals in violation of immigration laws??

The viable alternative to birth right citizenship is? If we amend the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship we open pandora's box to endless abuse. At the time, freed slaves were the issue, a little later Chinese babies, today brown people.

 

[matt0611]

There definitely needs to be an amendment in the constitution that is more clear about this issue and only allows citizenship if the parents are here illegally.

Its such a blatant misuse of the language of that part of the constitution.

The viable alternative to birth right citizenship is? If we amend the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship we open pandora's box to endless abuse. At the time, freed slaves were the issue, a little later Chinese babies, today brown people.

How is this taking away birthright citizenship? All children of legal permanent residents and people here legally on visas will still be citizens of the US.

 

[shortylickens]

How about we stop being greedy sons of bitches and pay for labor the way we would expect to get paid if we had to do the job.

Ummm, that would mean kicking out the illegals who work for half minimum wage.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thousands of natural born American citizens are deported every year with their illegal parents. They can return to claim their birthright when they're 18. They can then sponsor other family members for immigration, a process that takes a decade, at least, and their parents aren't eligible since they entered the country illegally in the past.

WTF kind of anchor is that, anyway? An imaginary anchor...

 

[Double Trouble]

Just about every other civilized country in the world has some form of requirements that the parents be legal residents for the children to be citizens, there's no reason the US can't do it. That said, the constitution is pretty clear on this one, we'll need an amendment to fix it. Of course the intent was never to enable anchor babies, but I'd rather go by what the constitution says rather than try and guess at intent.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta luv it. When it's pointed out that anchor babies are mostly the figment of fevered imagination and propagandizing, the same voices pretend nothing was said, repeat ad nauseum.

for those claiming that anchor babies are a real and significant issue, quantify your claims. On an annual basis, how many illegal couples are legally allowed to stay in the US because of their alleged anchor babies?

It's your claim- back it up with numbers.

 

[matt0611]

Gotta luv it. When it's pointed out that anchor babies are mostly the figment of fevered imagination and propagandizing, the same voices pretend nothing was said, repeat ad nauseum.

for those claiming that anchor babies are a real and significant issue, quantify your claims. On an annual basis, how many illegal couples are legally allowed to stay in the US because of their alleged anchor babies?

It's your claim- back it up with numbers.

Even if it somehow caused next to zero problems I would still be in favor of the rule being changed and/or clarified. Its a logical rule to have.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Gotta luv it. When it's pointed out that anchor babies are mostly the figment of fevered imagination and propagandizing, the same voices pretend nothing was said, repeat ad nauseum.

for those claiming that anchor babies are a real and significant issue, quantify your claims. On an annual basis, how many illegal couples are legally allowed to stay in the US because of their alleged anchor babies?

It's your claim- back it up with numbers.

It's hardly about legality. It's about the politicians' fear of breaking up families with an anti-amnesty vote, which will then lead to fewer latino votes for them. It's a bleeding heart argument, and if the babies aren't Americans, then it's a non-issue.

They're not really Americans anyway. They will never be properly encouraged by their parents to actually integrate into our society, but will instead create their own subculture that conflicts with ours.

 

[drebo]

The liberals in this thread show a remarkable lack of wisdom for the way things actually work in the real word. It's amazing.

Live in central california for a year or so. Send your kids to public school in central California. Then you'll see the true extent of the problem. It isn't merely about illegal immigrants. It's about illegal immigrants who expect us to cater to them. Each and every form is printed in two languages. Phone calls made to households are made in two languages. Classes are taught in two languages. Students who cannot read or write English are put in the same classes as the top students who can. Hell, being bilingual is almost a job requirement anymore. It's bullshit.

And yet there is no cheap labor. All of the major landscaping companies are run by white people. The small, independent farms are all run by Chinese. The myth that laborers are all mexican immigrants working for $2.50/hr is complete bullshit. The myth that mexicans stand outside of home depot is bullshit. It doesn't happen. Sure, some of them might do handy-man work, but they are the exception, not the rule.

The problems that illegals cause extend far deeper than simply an unwillingness to work...they have a complete unwillingness to integrate themselves into our society. They contribute nothing and expect everything. They artificially inflate the growth rate of our population, magnifying our job creation problems. We cannot survive as a nation if our population grows without bounds, while productivity stagnates. Especially if social welfare continues to be the norm. There simply isn't enough money in the country to tax to pay for services for everyone.

 

[Zebo]

Unwillingness to work? I went to school in Central California (cal poly SLO) and it was full of farms that were being harvested by illegal labor, not to mention all the suburban housewives bragging about Juanita the maid. Fact is what drives them to leave behind family and friends is us. How can you blame them? In many ways, these are the type of people who made America great, they are people with the gumption and enough desire to set out to a new land. As far as language meh it won't hurt you to learn another language. Good for brain.

Social Services need a restructuring - must work to get them and we wouldn't need the safety net if people were all gainfully employed which is easy to do if we didn't put food on Chinese tables but thats another thread.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Instead of fighting with the constitution to fix the problem with illegals using their citizen children to take advantage of taxpayer-funded services, why not just make it impossible for them to take advantage of those services? Require parents to provide proof of their legal residence in order to receive any federal or state aid. There you go. Heck, why not just make it all more difficult, very difficult, to keep certain non-immigrant leaches away too?

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Thousands of natural born American citizens are deported every year with their illegal parents. They can return to claim their birthright when they're 18. They can then sponsor other family members for immigration, a process that takes a decade, at least, and their parents aren't eligible since they entered the country illegally in the past.

WTF kind of anchor is that, anyway? An imaginary anchor...

This, only they need to be 21 to sponsor their parents. And of course, as you said, if their parents entered the country illegally in the past, they are automatically not eligible for any legal presence in the country. Anchor babies are a myth.

There are only anchor babies when parents going through deportation proceedings try to use the fact that their child is a citizen, and that deportation would separate their family, to draw sympathy and hopefully convince a judge to allow them to stay. But it doesn't work, with few exceptions.

 

[Zebo]

Courts say no. But it will happen anyway shortly. See Greece and Ireland. We can't continue borrowing over 10% of GDP to fund social welfare.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

It's hardly about legality. It's about the politicians' fear of breaking up families with an anti-amnesty vote, which will then lead to fewer latino votes for them. It's a bleeding heart argument, and if the babies aren't Americans, then it's a non-issue.

They're not really Americans anyway. They will never be properly encouraged by their parents to actually integrate into our society, but will instead create their own subculture that conflicts with ours.

So much fail. I have met plenty of citizens whose parents were in the country illegally, and they are 110% american. Some can't even speak Spanish, and most speak it horribly. Screw you sir. They are American, like it or not.

Of course, there are plenty of people that are how you describe, but your assertion that they are all like this and that they will NEVER integrate into society is absurdly wrong.

 

[Jaskalas]

Citizenship is not a State issue, it's a clearly defined Federal issue. A State passing an "anti-anchor baby" law would be about as effective as a State declaring war on Uruguay.

That is where secession comes in. Of course they don't have the balls to take it that far, so this is much ado about nothing.

 

[skyofavalon]

the only good anchor baby is an aborted or dead one.

 

[wetech]

Seems like pretty clear language to me no matter what side of issue you are on. Like Second Amendment

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...

Get over it. Change the Constitution if you don't like it.


PS: no ex post facto laws are allowed so all born here until you change it are still citizens.

Not really clear language. You're ignoring the part of the quote between the commas. The "and" means that both have to be true. The basis for the new laws would be this second part, that the children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US since the parents are not here legally.

 

[soulcougher73]

This should be a federal issue not a state one. 2 legals make a legal. 2 illegals do not make a legal.

Legal citizenship should not be the same as algerba where '2 negatives make a positive'.

 

[OutHouse]

Citizenship is not a State issue, it's a clearly defined Federal issue. A State passing an "anti-anchor baby" law would be about as effective as a State declaring war on Uruguay.

it very much is a state issue when it comes time to ratify the constitution.

 

[OutHouse]

This, only they need to be 21 to sponsor their parents. And of course, as you said, if their parents entered the country illegally in the past, they are automatically not eligible for any legal presence in the country. Anchor babies are a myth.

There are only anchor babies when parents going through deportation proceedings try to use the fact that their child is a citizen, and that deportation would separate their family, to draw sympathy and hopefully convince a judge to allow them to stay. But it doesn't work, with few exceptions.

fail

 

[piasabird]

There are a lot of legal issues that involve legal residency that come up for things like funding for college, and other things like driver's licenses. So there are some precedents for this. Maybe the Feds can consider someone a citizen, but that implies an unfunded mandate by the federal government. It is also the federal govt's responsibility to protect our foreign borders, and our coastlines, our tunnels, and our airtraffic. If enough states are willing to ratify this, then maybe it needs to be floated as an ammendment to the counstitution or a change to an existing amendment. I say bring it on and see if 50 states can ratify it???

 

[OutHouse]

Gotta luv it. When it's pointed out that anchor babies are mostly the figment of fevered imagination and propagandizing, the same voices pretend nothing was said, repeat ad nauseum.

for those claiming that anchor babies are a real and significant issue, quantify your claims. On an annual basis, how many illegal couples are legally allowed to stay in the US because of their alleged anchor babies?

It's your claim- back it up with numbers.

quantify yours. you havent proved shit. you just barf out garbage your heros on MSNBC and NPR spoon feed you.

 

[piasabird]

I saw an article a while back that some people who plan to give birth plan a visit as a tourist while they are preagnant, just so they can get citizenship for their baby.

 

[OutHouse]

Seems like pretty clear language to me no matter what side of issue you are on. Like Second Amendment

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...
Get over it. Change the Constitution if you don't like it.


PS: no ex post facto laws are allowed so all born here until you change it are still citizens.

did you forget about that part? do you even know what it means? is tools like you who totally gloss over this little sentence that has gotten our country in this mess.

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:

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. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

Sen. Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed:

concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

What Sen. Howard is saying here is citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States - just as is required to become a naturalized citizen. Therefore, while both national and the constitutional amendment made no distinction between who can be a citizen (Indian, Chinese, African, German, etc.) both required an exclusive allegiance to this country and that meant not owing any allegiance to any other government.

It does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” Note that Trumbull does not say temporarily within our jurisdiction, but completely within our jurisdiction.

Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion.

Perhaps because he was absolutely correct.

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

 

[dullard]

quantify yours. you havent proved shit. you just barf out garbage your heros on MSNBC and NPR spoon feed you.

Your side says there is a problem with anchor babies, then you state that the opposite side must prove how many there are? That doesn't really make any sense, does it. If they were a problem, then you'd be able to at least remotely tell us how big of a problem they are. Unless you can do that, they must not be a problem.

I perfer the simple approach to this issue. Which is more likely:

1) A person comes here illegally or legally.

or

2) A person chooses to get pregnant, travel to the US, give birth, leave legally, wait at least 21 years, hope that now 21+ year old child applies for a VISA, hope that 21+ year old child has a stable income over the poverty line, hope that 21+ year old child applies for you to come to the country, wait another 5 to 15 years, hope you get accepted, then return to the country (assuming the child still is in the US, still wants you there, and still has a good income). All while making certain you are never deported since that will essentially prevent you from ever being allowed back in.

I think that common sense shows that they will choose option #1 far more than option #2.