jillian
Princess
Again, what would you use as a basis for citizenship OTHER than birth?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are Charles Gibson's, Katie Couric's, Brian Williams' babies considered anchor babies?
Again, what would you use as a basis for citizenship OTHER than birth?
Again, what would you use as a basis for citizenship OTHER than birth?
The Fourteenth Amendment states,"(A) Persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
However a proviso limits foreigners who have babies in America. It couldn't be clearer, children of foreigners, aliens or diplomats, who are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, are ineligible for citizenship. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified we didn't have immigration laws. One hundred and thirty eight years later we are paying for the misinterpretation of it.
http://www.rense.com/general54/anchorbabiesborn.htm
As an aside, why is it that the people who can least afford to have kids have the most?
Hi AllBiz:
What so complicated about an Amendment to the Constitution that disallows automatic "birthright" citizenship?
Illegal Immigrants' Legal Kids Snarl Policy
Increased Birthrate Exacerbates Issue
By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 15, 2009; Page A01
A new report providing the most detailed portrait to date of the illegal immigrant population found that it is mostly made up of young families that are having children at a much faster rate than previously known. The study, released yesterday by the nonpartisan, Washington-based Pew Hispanic Center, also found that a disproportionate share of such children live in poverty and lack health insurance.
Because any child born in the United States has a right to citizenship, the growing presence of these children is likely to complicate the debate over immigration policies aimed at their parents.
NO!!!! This is the kind of ignorance that sees the USA going down the toilet more and more with every passing day. The 14th Amendment (link) includes the 'subject to' clause pertaining to individuals (slaves) owned by U.S. Citizens allowing 'them' and their descendants to become U.S. citizens. Foreign Nationals are 'subject to' the laws of 'their homeland' AND they are sneaking across our borders 'illegally' in order to 'benefit' from a misinterpretation of our 14th Amendment for their own personal gain/benefit.
There is no loophole in the 14th Amendment allowing Foreign Nationals to suddenly become 'subject to' the laws of the USA by coming here 'illegally' to engage in 'illegal' activity, but people working every day to 'destroy' this once-great nation created that false notion to forward 'their' Open Borders Lobby Agenda. The 14th Amendment is being purposely 'Misinterpreted' (story) to create the immigration debacle by adding strength to the Illegal Immigration Magnet (story) to force stupid Americans into believing that Comprehensive Amnesty is a viable solution; when in reality the USA is cutting its own throat by legitimizing the Illegal Alien Invasion that is destroying this once-great nation.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDaEBB0MJXI[/ame]
GL,
Terral
Again, what would you use as a basis for citizenship OTHER than birth?
How about, at the very least, permanent resident status of at least one of the parents? As opposed to "undocumented"....
Again, what would you use as a basis for citizenship OTHER than birth?
How about, at the very least, permanent resident status of at least one of the parents? As opposed to "undocumented"....
and what if they're here on a work Visa? They're here legally.
I have a problem with doing away with the concept of birth as a basis for citizenship.
We've seen how the whole bloodline thing works.
It isn't pretty.
"Here legally" doesn't grant them citizenship rights. If it did, they would be granted the right to vote.
Work Visas are, by their very definition "temporary". The fact that they, and the government, "overlooks" when the term of the visa expires is, and has been, one of the very reasons that we have become a nation of illegal immigrants.
The children born to those here under those conditions/circumstances are / should be citizens of their (parents') country of origin -- not the country they happen to be standing on.
You're right.... It isn't pretty.... It's a damned shame that we let this happen!
"Here legally" doesn't grant them citizenship rights. If it did, they would be granted the right to vote.
ummmmmmmm.... right. but that wasn't my question.
Work Visas are, by their very definition "temporary". The fact that they, and the government, "overlooks" when the term of the visa expires is, and has been, one of the very reasons that we have become a nation of illegal immigrants.
Agreed. Same for student visas. but again, that isn't my question because if their status has expired, they are no longer here legally.
The children born to those here under those conditions/circumstances are / should be citizens of their (parents') country of origin -- not the country they happen to be standing on.
There is an argument to be made there, but then what is your criteria? legal status? permanent residency? citizenship? there are people who never get there citizenship, but have permanent residence status. Their children should be citizens if born here, IMO.
You're right.... It isn't pretty.... It's a damned shame that we let this happen!
Yes. And therein lies the crux of the problem. It WAS allowed to happen....and for a lot of reasons, including corporations liking cheap labor. but fact is they are here. And we can chose to expend all our money on enforcement..... or we can choose to make rational decisions for the future about what to do with the people already here and how to prevent illegals from being here in the future.
A few things make it tough!What so complicated about an Amendment to the Constitution that disallows automatic "birthright" citizenship?
What so complicated about an Amendment to the Constitution that disallows automatic "birthright" citizenship?
I'm all for it, but for political expedience, I doubt that either party will follow up on this suggestion as it might cause them to lose out on hispanic voters. I see anchor babies as a huge slap in the face of the citizenship provisions of our constitution, but I doubt that either party has the cojones to fix this issue.
If Democrats and Republicans supported a Constitutional amendment in unison, then who would lose Hispanic votes? In truth, if the people want this change, they need to start a grass roots non-partisan effort pushing their representatives to put this in motion.
I'm all for it, but for political expedience, I doubt that either party will follow up on this suggestion as it might cause them to lose out on hispanic voters. I see anchor babies as a huge slap in the face of the citizenship provisions of our constitution, but I doubt that either party has the cojones to fix this issue.
If Democrats and Republicans supported a Constitutional amendment in unison, then who would lose Hispanic votes? In truth, if the people want this change, they need to start a grass roots non-partisan effort pushing their representatives to put this in motion.
It would be the person in the party who didn't actively go against the Latinos! Some sellout would say look at my racist opponent in the primary. La Raza would be nailing the person as a racist. The ACLU would be all over him. It would be a smearbath! No Democrat has the guts to say their anti-illegal immigration.
It would be the same for a Republican who was pro-choice!