Anchor baby law to be changed.

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

AMERICAN citizenship is a federal level matter, not a local one.

Now, get them to do their jobs!

They are doing their job. Babies born here are American citizens, as it should be.

The feds are doing a lousy job of forcing them out and need to start smacking states who provide services to them, and especially the sanctuary cities.

80 percent of Americans, including 83 percent of conservatives, support a path to legal status or citizenship for illegal immigrants.

We've already seen how you rubes support states' rights only when it suits you, and now it looks like you only demand the Will of the People be respected only when it suits you.

Please reference in the Constitution where it is any of the state's business.

Why must you liberals just make shit up to justify positions for which there is no support?

 

[Syriusly]

Stop hiring them and they won't come and wont' stay.

And no need to find them and deport them.

Of course your solution is to kill people.

No need to find them if the invaders are handled before they can get in.
.

Leaving 10 million here in the United States which will have every motivation to never return to their country of origin.

Great strategy for keeping illegal aliens here.

I didn't say handle them if they go back. I said handle them if they come in. I don't care if they leave.

You haven't really followed the subject much have you?

When the United States toughens border controls, illegals tend to stay.

Eliminate the jobs and they leave.

So why exactly are you opposed to ending the employment of illegals?

Why are you opposed to answering the question about the parents staying or not staying?

I'm for punishing those who hire and the illegals they hire. You only want those who hire punished. Your answer to the parent question can clear that up if I'm incorrectly stating something.

If your 'parent question' is whether illegal immigrants who are parents of a U.S. citizen have any legal right to stay- they have no right based upon their child's citizenship. They can be deported just like any other illegal alien.

I would like to eliminate illegal immigration. The most effective route to doing so is to eliminate the hiring of illegal aliens- the issue of 'anchor babies' has almost no impact- and what you want regarding them is essentially impossible to achieve- since you will never get a constitutional amendment changing the 14th Amendment.

If either the Democrats or the Republicans really cared about illegal immigration- yes they would go after the employers.

But both parties prefer to use the issue for political purposes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact remains that win in the GOP mainstream and its leaderships will do everything we can do to prevent Trump, birtherism, and racism in the GOP from succeeding in this election. The far right will not win. They don't have the votes.

 

[Conservative65]

No need to find them if the invaders are handled before they can get in.
.

Leaving 10 million here in the United States which will have every motivation to never return to their country of origin.

Great strategy for keeping illegal aliens here.

I didn't say handle them if they go back. I said handle them if they come in. I don't care if they leave.

You haven't really followed the subject much have you?

When the United States toughens border controls, illegals tend to stay.

Eliminate the jobs and they leave.

So why exactly are you opposed to ending the employment of illegals?

Why are you opposed to answering the question about the parents staying or not staying?

I'm for punishing those who hire and the illegals they hire. You only want those who hire punished. Your answer to the parent question can clear that up if I'm incorrectly stating something.

If your 'parent question' is whether illegal immigrants who are parents of a U.S. citizen have any legal right to stay- they have no right based upon their child's citizenship. They can be deported just like any other illegal alien.

I would like to eliminate illegal immigration. The most effective route to doing so is to eliminate the hiring of illegal aliens- the issue of 'anchor babies' has almost no impact- and what you want regarding them is essentially impossible to achieve- since you will never get a constitutional amendment changing the 14th Amendment.

If either the Democrats or the Republicans really cared about illegal immigration- yes they would go after the employers.

But both parties prefer to use the issue for political purposes.

I didn't ask can they be deported I ask should they be deported. There is a difference. I know they can. I want to know if you think they should or shouldn't be deported.

The most effective route is to deport those here and "handle" those trying to come in. If you get the ones here out and stop the ones outside from coming in, it's handled.

You continue to only look at dealing with one side. You say nothing about handling those just as guilty, the illegals.

 

[Conservative65]

The fact remains that win in the GOP mainstream and its leaderships will do everything we can do to prevent Trump, birtherism, and racism in the GOP from succeeding in this election. The far right will not win. They don't have the votes.

Sounds to me like you Democrats are trying to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact remains that we in the GOP mainstream and its leaderships will do everything we can do to prevent Trump, birtherism, and racism in the GOP from succeeding in this election. The far right will not win. They don't have the votes.

Sounds to me like you Democrats are trying to.

You are not a real Republican, so your opinion does not matter to me at all. You don't have the votes. We in the mainstream of the GOP and America will ensure that you don't get them.

 

[ogibillm]

Billy, billy, billy. LOL

At the very least there will have to be a scotus decision that would distinguish Wong Ark Kim from children born here to two parents neither of whom have legal status. And, frankly, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.

Try reading the piece I posted.

The article you posted linked to this
Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

And that is the point. Wong Kim Ark has been interpreted to stand for birthright citizenship. Regardless of what the federalist blog my wish, the scotus is not going to overturn Kim Ark's holding that a child is a US citizen when born in the US to two non-US citizens, who retain legal status in their native country and evidence an intent (and in their cases the legal duty) to return there. Kim Ark and the 14th never contemplated "illegal immigration," even though the SW border was crossed and recrossed for generations.

Whether, the scotus would hold that a child is a citizen when born to two non-citizens illegally here is a citizen .... maybe that's a question. But you do correctly identify the words at issue "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

Any ruling can be reviewed at the Court's discretion. Should they determine that the language of the 14th in dispute has been erroneously or politically interpreted away from the original and intended meaning of the language, there could well be a major shift. Such an act would not be without precedent, and the Court certainly has the authority to reverse previous rulings it deems mistaken.

Billy, there has to be a case or controversy. IF Texas actually passed a law saying "no birthright citizenship," then at least conceptually, the scotus might revisit Kim Ark and the application on the 14th. IF some local yahooos in Texas decide not to issue birth certificates, a federal court will have to enjoin them to stop violating the law or go to the hooskow, like Kim Davis did.

The problem would be this.

The 13 said slavery was illegal, and nobody was a slave anymore (with irrelevant exceptions). The 14th just said "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" The US stopped importing slaves in 1807, so every former slave was born here, although they weren't citizens when born because they were slaves.

So, again, you identified the issue: what's it mean in subject to the jurisdiction thereof. We had people who'd been born to non-citizens, who now became citizens cause they were born here subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

In Kim Ark, the guy's parents were never subject to our jurisdiction because the Chinese Exclusion Act(s) said they had to go home ... eventually. Kim Ark was a citizen, because he never gave allegiance to china and was beyond any doubt subject to our penal laws. Perhaps there's some distinction between him an anchor babies, but I wouldn't bet on it.

There are easier ways to dissuade illegal aliens.

The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are the controversy.

there is no real controversy.
nobody reputable disagrees with birthright citizenship

 

[JakeStarkey]

Try reading the piece I posted.

The article you posted linked to this
Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

And that is the point. Wong Kim Ark has been interpreted to stand for birthright citizenship. Regardless of what the federalist blog my wish, the scotus is not going to overturn Kim Ark's holding that a child is a US citizen when born in the US to two non-US citizens, who retain legal status in their native country and evidence an intent (and in their cases the legal duty) to return there. Kim Ark and the 14th never contemplated "illegal immigration," even though the SW border was crossed and recrossed for generations.

Whether, the scotus would hold that a child is a citizen when born to two non-citizens illegally here is a citizen .... maybe that's a question. But you do correctly identify the words at issue "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

Any ruling can be reviewed at the Court's discretion. Should they determine that the language of the 14th in dispute has been erroneously or politically interpreted away from the original and intended meaning of the language, there could well be a major shift. Such an act would not be without precedent, and the Court certainly has the authority to reverse previous rulings it deems mistaken.

Billy, there has to be a case or controversy. IF Texas actually passed a law saying "no birthright citizenship," then at least conceptually, the scotus might revisit Kim Ark and the application on the 14th. IF some local yahooos in Texas decide not to issue birth certificates, a federal court will have to enjoin them to stop violating the law or go to the hooskow, like Kim Davis did.

The problem would be this.

The 13 said slavery was illegal, and nobody was a slave anymore (with irrelevant exceptions). The 14th just said "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" The US stopped importing slaves in 1807, so every former slave was born here, although they weren't citizens when born because they were slaves.

So, again, you identified the issue: what's it mean in subject to the jurisdiction thereof. We had people who'd been born to non-citizens, who now became citizens cause they were born here subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

In Kim Ark, the guy's parents were never subject to our jurisdiction because the Chinese Exclusion Act(s) said they had to go home ... eventually. Kim Ark was a citizen, because he never gave allegiance to china and was beyond any doubt subject to our penal laws. Perhaps there's some distinction between him an anchor babies, but I wouldn't bet on it.

There are easier ways to dissuade illegal aliens.

The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are the controversy.

there is no real.controvers

There is no controversy at all. The nativists are up the creek without a paddle.

 

[Syriusly]

Leaving 10 million here in the United States which will have every motivation to never return to their country of origin.

Great strategy for keeping illegal aliens here.

I didn't say handle them if they go back. I said handle them if they come in. I don't care if they leave.

You haven't really followed the subject much have you?

When the United States toughens border controls, illegals tend to stay.

Eliminate the jobs and they leave.

So why exactly are you opposed to ending the employment of illegals?

Why are you opposed to answering the question about the parents staying or not staying?

I'm for punishing those who hire and the illegals they hire. You only want those who hire punished. Your answer to the parent question can clear that up if I'm incorrectly stating something.

If your 'parent question' is whether illegal immigrants who are parents of a U.S. citizen have any legal right to stay- they have no right based upon their child's citizenship. They can be deported just like any other illegal alien.

I would like to eliminate illegal immigration. The most effective route to doing so is to eliminate the hiring of illegal aliens- the issue of 'anchor babies' has almost no impact- and what you want regarding them is essentially impossible to achieve- since you will never get a constitutional amendment changing the 14th Amendment.

If either the Democrats or the Republicans really cared about illegal immigration- yes they would go after the employers.

But both parties prefer to use the issue for political purposes.

I didn't ask can they be deported I ask should they be deported. There is a difference. I know they can. I want to know if you think they should or shouldn't be deported.

The most effective route is to deport those here and "handle" those trying to come in. If you get the ones here out and stop the ones outside from coming in, it's handled.

You continue to only look at dealing with one side. You say nothing about handling those just as guilty, the illegals.

What I would like to see- in all sincerity- is a horrifying concept for you- a comprehensive approach to illegal immigration.

• Our border security should be tightened- it is a scandal that after 9/11 that our Northern and Southern borders were not secured.
• A process needs to be put in place that employers can use to confirm that an employee can legally work in the United States- this would probably require either the issuance of passports to all American citizens, or federal photo ID's linked to a data base.
• Once this was put in place employers who used the system and didn't abuse the system would not be charged for hiring illegal aliens
• But employers who refused to use confirm the eligibility should face criminal prosecution.
• Meanwhile- there should be a guest worker program that really works- for jobs that do not get filled- especially agriculture- and guest workers should be paid Federal minimum wage.
• Tech worker Visa's should be much more heavily restricted, and companies should be required to train an American for each foreign tech worker brought in, and wages for foreign workers should be required to be the average for the industry to prevent undercutting of American wages.
  
• Laws should be passed- or enforced- against birth tourism to the United States- children born in the United States are citizens- doesn't mean we have to willingly allow pregnant women to travel to the United States as tourists in their last 2 months of pregnancy.

And that is off the top of my head.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Texas cannot, but a SCOTUS ruling on the language of the amendment could return is to its original meaning, as did Heller for the 2A.

Yep, the activist conservatives can make the law up in 5-4 decisions. Funny, how real conservatives opposed activist judges and the new iteration of 21st Century conservatives like it when they like the ruling and piss and moan when they don't.

Correcting a mistake made later in the country's history is not activism.

Corrections are called "Constitutional Amendments"- which is your recourse to what you consider to be an incorrect law.

An amendment is not necessary to correct a mistake. SCOTUS may overturn its own decisions.

Yes- the Supreme Court could overturn Citizens United, and the Supreme Court could overturn Heller.

It is possible that the Supreme Court could change its mind.

But if you want to correct what you consider to be a mistake by the Supreme Court- the route to do more than just wish upon a star is by a Constitutional amendment.

Again, an amendment is not necessary.

 

[protectionist]

There is no controversy at all. The nativists are up the creek without a paddle.

That's true . There is no controversy. As Jacob said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Summed up, there never has been any such thing as an anchor baby, and those who have given citizenship to kids of non-citizens, have broken the law, and should be arrested, jailed, and beaten.

 

[protectionist]

Again, an amendment is not necessary.

That's correct. There never has been any such thing as legal birthright citizenship for kids of non-citizens. Just because US officials of the past were negligent in allowing unscrupulous other officials to get away with this ruse, doesn't mean we have to accept it one iota now, in 2016.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Disagree with reality all you want, billy and protectionist.

Birth right citizenship is a fact, and there is nothing on the horizon that remotely indicate any change is coming.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Disagree with reality all you want, billy and protectionist.

Birth right citizenship is a fact, and there is nothing on the horizon that remotely indicate any change is coming.

Time will tell.

 

[ogibillm]

Disagree with reality all you want, billy and protectionist.

Birth right citizenship is a fact, and there is nothing on the horizon that remotely indicate any change is coming.

Time will tell.

time has told - or do you think we've been doing it wrong for the last 150 years?

 

[Syriusly]

Yep, the activist conservatives can make the law up in 5-4 decisions. Funny, how real conservatives opposed activist judges and the new iteration of 21st Century conservatives like it when they like the ruling and piss and moan when they don't.

Correcting a mistake made later in the country's history is not activism.

Corrections are called "Constitutional Amendments"- which is your recourse to what you consider to be an incorrect law.

An amendment is not necessary to correct a mistake. SCOTUS may overturn its own decisions.

Yes- the Supreme Court could overturn Citizens United, and the Supreme Court could overturn Heller.

It is possible that the Supreme Court could change its mind.

But if you want to correct what you consider to be a mistake by the Supreme Court- the route to do more than just wish upon a star is by a Constitutional amendment.

Again, an amendment is not necessary.

Your alternative is to wish upon a star.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no controversy at all. The nativists are up the creek without a paddle.

That's true . There is no controversy. As Jacob said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Summed up, there never has been any such thing as an anchor baby, and those who have given citizenship to kids of non-citizens, have broken the law, and should be arrested, jailed, and beaten.

Lead the way Protectionist- do your civic duty- and make those citizen arrests!

Let us know how you enjoy jail.

 

[Unkotare]

Again, an amendment is not necessary.

That's correct. There never has been any such thing as legal birthright citizenship for kids of non-citizens. Just because US officials of the past were negligent in allowing unscrupulous other officials to get away with this ruse, doesn't mean we have to accept it one iota now, in 2016.

You're an ignorant, irrelevant buffoon.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no controversy at all. The nativists are up the creek without a paddle.

That's true . There is no controversy. As Jacob said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Summed up, there never has been any such thing as an anchor baby, and those who have given citizenship to kids of non-citizens, have broken the law, and should be arrested, jailed, and beaten.

[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Why is it the xenophobes don't understand grammar?


foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

Illegal aliens are not ambassadors or family ministers or members of their families.

As Jacob noted- this doesn't apply to children born to ambassadors or foreign ministers

 

[JakeStarkey]

protectionist wants to go to jail.

He must or he won't commit civilian arrests.