• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Repubs say they want to end birthright citizenship - bye, bye, 2016 election

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Londo_Jowo said:
This is already the case. My son was born in Indonesia and he was immediately considered a US Citizen. He has an American born abroad birth certificate.
Click to expand...

I knew they had that as McCain had one of those, but don't both parents have to be citizens? Or, are you saying just one needs to be a US Citizen for that to happen? If just one, then they should just negate the 'be in the US drop a baby and it's a US Citizen' rule, grandfather (of course) everyone in up until this point, and call it a day.
 
OutHouse said:
so a baby born in france or germany or holland, or denmark or italy is not a french or german or dutch, or denmark or italalian citizen?
Click to expand...
exactly.
They have to wait for the min number of years for naturalization like everybody else.

Of course, they have various advantages depending on the country, e.g. in mine years between the age of 8 and 18 count double towards the 10 years needed.
I'm not sure but I think children of foreigners below 18 can't be naturalized unless they do so together with their parents.
This happens because human rights law requires families to be united and you don't want to be unable to expel foreign criminals just because their 9 years old kid has become a citizen.

The years spent as an asylum seeker (i.e. while the request is being examined, at this point you may still be just an illegal who's trying to spend some time on the dole before expulsion for lack of legitimate reasons) count half as a middle ground.

Illegals don't exist on paper so they have no years to make count. Sending a kid to school means you've been detected and you will be deported before enough years have passed.


chucky2 said:
Or, are you saying just one needs to be a US Citizen for that to happen?
Click to expand...
in most western countries just one needs to be. Some countries discriminate between mother and father or have variations depending on marriage status.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how much success would Trump have if he were to become president?

He wants to evict every illegal immigrant in America. He wants to build a great wall. He wants to evict anchor babies.

Most of what he's talking about is unconstitutional. He's going to have to go thru Congress, and I bet his actions will be contested in the Supreme Court. I would be very surprised if he wins there. So, what's he going to do then? Go against the Supreme Court?

America is changing. Deal with it and move on. It's really not scary. I know Donald has struck a cord with most middle class Americans. IMO, most are just caught up in the moment.
 
mizzou said:
I'll admit I am fairly ignorant of what it takes to become naturalized in the USA. What is the main reason someone would choose to enter illegally vs legally?
Click to expand...

Desperation, violence, lack of jobs...

I'll never forget the lady I overheard on the Blue-Line light rail service here in L.A. She had a toddler, two older kids (maybe 4 or 5 yo), and two babies in a double stroller. She was bragging to a woman next to her that she gets $400 a month per child here. That was about ten years ago, I'm sure it's more now.

Of course I don't know if she spent all that on her children, but there are sources here in CA for low income parents to also obtain free formula/food, diapers, strollers, etc. Do you think she could get that in Mexico, El Salvador, or Guatemala?

What would anyone do if faced with extreme poverty, no jobs, and rampant violence in their home country? Wouldn't anyone find life here better and easier with the support we give (illegal or not), and possibly find legal status by birthing U.S. citizens?
 
Vic said:
Reagan got 70% of the Hispanic vote. What's happened since then?
Click to expand...

Better if you watch this video.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ep_v9kTdAA&t=4m40s

JEDIYoda said:
rofl...nice try! You can say what you want without links...back up your diatribe...
Click to expand...

Oh goody, proof.. it just so happens I have a little.. let me know if you want some more..

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/358738-fiance-was-cheating-while-pregnant/

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/t...ckmailing-me-into-helping-her-get-green-card/

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/439326-reporting-fraud-to-uscis/

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/559708-k-1-visa-fraud/

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/557749-did-she-just-want-a-green-card-money/

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/556481-why-so-many-women-here-are-cheated-by-jamaicans/

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/552977-very-complicated-situation/

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/542915-building-a-case-for-marriage-fraud/

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/541401-green-card-scam-chinese/
 
Mai72 said:
I wonder how much success would Trump have if he were to become president?

He wants to evict every illegal immigrant in America. He wants to build a great wall. He wants to evict anchor babies.

Most of what he's talking about is unconstitutional. He's going to have to go thru Congress, and I bet his actions will be contested in the Supreme Court. I would be very surprised if he wins there. So, what's he going to do then? Go against the Supreme Court?

America is changing. Deal with it and move on. It's really not scary. I know Donald has struck a cord with most middle class Americans. IMO, most are just caught up in the moment.
Click to expand...

He wants to evict every illegal immigrant in America - Completely legal and constitutional. Does not require congressional blessing

He wants to build a great wall. - Completely legal and constitutiona.l Does not require congressional blessing

He wants to evict anchor babies. - This is dependent on court interpretation of the 14th. Congress can also enact modification to clarify the anchor issue.

People are concerned about ILLEGAL immigration. They also realize that the existing system is broken and needs to be fixed.

30 years ago, Reagan tried to solve the issue and that result failed. More encouragement. Obama has not resolved anything, nor has any president in-between these two.
 
cabri said:
30 years ago, Reagan tried to solve the issue and that result failed. More encouragement. Obama has not resolved anything, nor has any president in-between these two.
Click to expand...

There was a solution in 2007 but it was killed by Republicans in Congress.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0607/Immigration_dead_.html#

People are concerned about ILLEGAL immigration. They also realize that the existing system is broken and needs to be fixed.
Click to expand...

Congress is hopelessly broken by gerrymandering and pandering. The only way a constitutional amendment can be passed without congress is if a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention but I think it may be time for one.
 
Last edited:
cabri said:
He wants to evict every illegal immigrant in America - Completely legal and constitutional. Does not require congressional blessing
Click to expand...

Is basically logistically impossible though, so there's that.

He wants to build a great wall. - Completely legal and constitutional Does not require congressional blessing
Click to expand...

Would absolutely require congressional blessing unless he plans to find tens of billions of dollars in the couch cushions. (and no, the idea that Mexicans are going to pay for it is both likely unconstitutional and would also require congressional action anyway)

He wants to evict anchor babies. - This is dependent on court interpretation of the 14th. Congress can also enact modification to clarify the anchor issue.
Click to expand...

Blatantly unconstitutional, as you would be ex post facto removing citizenship from millions of Americans. As for future 'anchor babies', he would be relying on a fairly radical reinterpretation of the 14th amendment, even if he could get Congress to sign off. Let's put that in the 'very unlikely' bucket.

People are concerned about ILLEGAL immigration. They also realize that the existing system is broken and needs to be fixed.

30 years ago, Reagan tried to solve the issue and that result failed. More encouragement. Obama has not resolved anything, nor has any president in-between these two.
Click to expand...

Funny thing, comprehensive immigration reform passed the Senate (in a bipartisan fashion no less!) and Obama said he would sign it. House Republicans never bothered to take it up for a vote. Most likely because Boehner was afraid enough Democrats and Republicans would join together to pass it.

Trump's 'plan' is a ridiculous fantasy that falls apart as soon as you even try to apply it to reality. It's unhinged ranting for those who like ranting more than they like actual policies. If that works for some people, I guess that's just a sad statement about politics in the US.
 
eskimospy said:
Is basically logistically impossible though, so there's that.
Click to expand...

Not to mention highly problematic from a legal perspective. How do you find, process, and deport them without massively violating the Due Process clause, Habeas Corpus, the 4th Amendment, Posse Comitatus, etc?
 
LegendKiller said:
The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress did not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense."
Click to expand...

This notion that repealing birthright citizen ship is some extreme conservative position is silly. It's highly unlikely that the writers of the 14th amendment meant to give citizenship to millions of Mexican anchor babies. The vast majority of the world also doesn't have birthright citizenship. It happened by accident here and now we're paying the price.
 
ichy said:
This notion that repealing birthright citizen ship is some extreme conservative position is silly. It's highly unlikely that the writers of the 14th amendment meant to give citizenship to millions of Mexican anchor babies. The vast majority of the world also doesn't have birthright citizenship. It happened by accident here and now we're paying the price.
Click to expand...

Actually that's not true at all; it was on purpose. This exact outcome was mentioned by a number of legislators at the time the 14th amendment was enacted and was met with no objection.
 
K1052 said:
Not to mention highly problematic from a legal perspective. How do you find, process, and deport them without massively violating the Due Process clause, Habeas Corpus, the 4th Amendment, Posse Comitatus, etc?
Click to expand...


They are able to deport people now; it is a matter of political will.
Obama does not have it.
Both the Democrats and Republicans are afraid to actually put forward enforcement due to political backlash from supporters.
 
eskimospy said:
Is basically logistically impossible though, so there's that.



Would absolutely require congressional blessing unless he plans to find tens of billions of dollars in the couch cushions. (and no, the idea that Mexicans are going to pay for it is both likely unconstitutional and would also require congressional action anyway)



Blatantly unconstitutional, as you would be ex post facto removing citizenship from millions of Americans. As for future 'anchor babies', he would be relying on a fairly radical reinterpretation of the 14th amendment, even if he could get Congress to sign off. Let's put that in the 'very unlikely' bucket.



Funny thing, comprehensive immigration reform passed the Senate (in a bipartisan fashion no less!) and Obama said he would sign it. House Republicans never bothered to take it up for a vote. Most likely because Boehner was afraid enough Democrats and Republicans would join together to pass it.

Trump's 'plan' is a ridiculous fantasy that falls apart as soon as you even try to apply it to reality. It's unhinged ranting for those who like ranting more than they like actual policies. If that works for some people, I guess that's just a sad statement about politics in the US.
Click to expand...
Here us where you are wrong. It is not a radical interpretation of the 14th. It is, in fact, a pretty well accepted one by most legal scholars. The 14th does not confer birthright upon illegals. I posted this above from above article I read.
 
K1052 said:
Not to mention highly problematic from a legal perspective. How do you find, process, and deport them without massively violating the Due Process clause, Habeas Corpus, the 4th Amendment, Posse Comitatus, etc?
Click to expand...
Easy. Go where they work, ask for verified employment documents for every worker. If the employer can't provide them, illegal. We can find them pretty easily. It's just nobody wants to.
 
LegendKiller said:
Here us where you are wrong. It is not a radical interpretation of the 14th. It is, in fact, a pretty well accepted one by most legal scholars. The 14th does not confer birthright upon illegals. I posted this above from above article I read.
Click to expand...

It's actually not a 'pretty well accepted one by most legal scholars', it is in direct contravention of SCOTUS precedent and the governing interpretation of the 14th amendment for about the last 117 years. If you have any evidence to show that 'most legal scholars' consider US v. Wonk Kim Ark to be wrongly decided and wish to revisit more than a century of jurisprudence please provide it. I've seen nothing of the sort.

It's also odd that you describe Richard Posner as a 'liberal judicial activist', which of course would be a label that most people (himself likely included) would reject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner.
 
LegendKiller said:
Easy. Go where they work, ask for verified employment documents for every worker. If the employer can't provide them, illegal. We can find them pretty easily. It's just nobody wants to.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so a census of sorts for ~30 MILLION businesses that would have a great incentive not to comply and to hide the nature of their employees. That sounds super easy.

Is this a joke? How do you know who works there? Are you going to stake out all 30 million businesses to see who goes in and out? Are you going to audit all 30 million businesses? Not only is that a truly massive undertaking, it would be an intrusion of the federal government into the operation of businesses the scale of which this country has never seen.

Always interesting to see how quickly 'conservatives' turn out not to care about government power when it's used for causes they like.
 
Last edited:
LegendKiller said:
Easy. Go where they work, ask for verified employment documents for every worker. If the employer can't provide them, illegal. We can find them pretty easily. It's just nobody wants to.
Click to expand...

That's a half assed answer to the first part of a three part question. When it comes down to it are you going to be in favor of warantless searches of homes and businesses? Stopping people in public to provide proof of citizenship? Sorting through school records to find the children of illegal immigrants and detaining them to compel their parents to surrender?

These are the kind of things that would be required just to find them.
 
eskimospy said:
Ahh, so a census of sorts for ~30 MILLION businesses that would have a great incentive not to comply and to hide the nature of their employees. That sounds super easy.

Is this a joke? How do you know who works there? Are you going to stake out all 30 million businesses to see who goes in and out? Are you going to audit all 30 million businesses? Not only is that a truly massive undertaking, it would be an intrusion of the federal government into the operation of businesses the scale of which this country has never seen.

Always interesting to see how quickly 'conservatives' turn out not to care about government power when it's used for causes they like.
Click to expand...
Well shit, since it's hard to do, might as well not do it.

Fuckit, why don't we just ask half of the world to come here and live since they are such an economic benefit. You can give them your job and your house first
 
K1052 said:
That's a half assed answer to the first part of a three part question. When it comes down to it are you going to be in favor of warantless searches of homes and businesses? Stopping people in public to provide proof of citizenship? Sorting through school records to find the children of illegal immigrants and detaining them to compel their parents to surrender?

These are the kind of things that would be required just to find them.
Click to expand...
Please, we already have laws in place. Because we lack the will to enforce them means that our laws are worthless.
 
LegendKiller said:
Please, we already have laws in place. Because we lack the will to enforce them means that our laws are worthless.
Click to expand...

What existing law empowers the federal government to conduct unlimited warantless searches of businesses and residences to find illegal immigrants?
 
LegendKiller said:
Well shit, since it's hard to do, might as well not do it.

Fuckit, why don't we just ask half of the world to come here and live since they are such an economic benefit. You can give them your job and your house first
Click to expand...

Wait, you just said it was easy to do. Not easy anymore when you start thinking about what it actually involves, is it? This is the essence of Trumpism; blustering nonsense that falls apart instantly on contact with reality.

I would love to hear a plausible plan for implementing what you're talking about. Forget the fact that it would never pass Congress in a million years, let's assume you get everything you want in the legislature. Show me how this would be an even remotely feasible thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top