Birthright Citizenship is Teed Up Again

[BackAgain]

Not gonna happen.

That’s a different issue.

And you might be wrong.

 

[Unkotare]

..., then he serves to anchor applications for other family members to come her and to seek citizenship on that basis.

...

20 years later, and only if those family members don't have a record of being deported? That's no anchor.

 

[Unkotare]

...

And you might be wrong.

I won't be.

 

[BackAgain]

20 years later, and only if those family members don't have a record of being deported? That's no anchor.

Who said 20 years later?

Cite it if you can, please.

 

[BackAgain]

I won't be.

You probably will be, in fact.

 

[Unkotare]

Who said 20 years later?

Cite it if you can, please.

Actually, the process can start when that "baby" is 21 years old. IF approved, the "baby" would be around 24. Some anchor.

 

[Unkotare]

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/guides/A1en.pdf

 

[BackAgain]

Actually, the process can start when that "baby" is 21 years old. IF approved, the "baby" would be around 24. Some anchor.

Cite.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actually you've described anchor people. who can be a relative of any age.
Like the way Melania Trump was able to bring in her parents.
And she's no baby.

That was for LEGAL immigration. Irrelevant to the discussion, but you already knew that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No. It’s not.

It is merely a convenient term of art referring to an alien woman having her baby on US soil which then (if we buy birthright by place of birth) makes the child a U.S. citizen. If the child is a U.S. citizen, then he serves to anchor applications for other family members to come her and to seek citizenship on that basis.

Anchor babies is not the only term used for this scenario. But it works.

So, you admit that it is a misnomer because they are not actually an anchor? That was the point that went screaming over your empty head. Again, that is LEGAL citizenship and not applicable to these cases.

 

[BackAgain]

So, you admit that it is a misnomer because they are not actually an anchor?

No. In fact, quite the opposite.

They do anchor the non resident family members in applications for special consideration (like obtaining green cards).

That was the point that went screaming over your empty head.

Wrong again, ensign. You aren’t smart or knowledgeable enough to understand. That’s all.

Again, that is LEGAL citizenship and not applicable to these cases.

You clearly aren’t tracking this conversation, ensign.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I’m not convinced it would require an amendment.

The current amendment is the subject of discussion and debate as I had previously noted. So what could be needed instead of an amendment is a Congressionally passed law to state clearly what it means; or perhaps an Executive Order directing how it shall be interpreted by the Immigration agents and courts.

Either would likely lead to a court challenge. And perhaps the SCOTUS would then have to revisit the viability of its previous interpretation. And overrule it.

If you are unsure, pass the amendment so you will be sure. You are taking a chance on everything else. Who wouldn't bet on a sure thing?

I have told you those tactics have already been tried and the courts merely struck them down based on the 14th Amendment. Why is it so hard for you to accept facts?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/guides/A1en.pdf

If I may, I would add that the relatives are only given a green card, not citizenship status, which would be another completely different process taking many years to complete. They still can't vote and may be senior citizens by the time they could be citizens.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No. In fact, quite the opposite.

They do anchor the non resident family members in applications for special consideration (like obtaining green cards).


Wrong again, ensign. You aren’t smart or knowledgeable enough to understand. That’s all.


You clearly aren’t tracking this conversation, ensign.

Not for 20 years! Did you read the linked article that Unk supplied? I'll bet you didn't, or you wouldn't be so stupid as to post false statement. Green cards are f-ing useless to an immigrant except they won't be deported for overstaying their time. It doesn't make them citizens or give them the right to vote. You continue to bark at the wrong tree like a dyslexic coon dog!

 

[BackAgain]

If you are unsure, pass the amendment so you will be sure.

Application denied. It’s Not needed.

Passing amendments isn’t required to correct SCOTUS decisions which can be (and ought to be) revisited by the Court.
And the methodology of getting the SCOTUS to reconsider can be massively less cumbersome than trying to get an Amendment ratified.

If the SCOTUS fails to revisit United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), or if it fails to overrule that decision, THEN we can go the Amendment route.

 

[BackAgain]

Not for 20 years! Did you read the linked article that Unk supplied? I'll bet you didn't, or you wouldn't be so stupid as to post false statement. Green cards are f-ing useless to an immigrant except they won't be deported for overstaying their time. It doesn't make them citizens or give them the right to vote. You continue to bark at the wrong tree like a dyslexic coon dog!

You’re such a bloviating asshole, ensign.

Where do you get this “20” year shit?

Quote it with precision and clarity.

I suspect that you have once again simply misread or misunderstood what you’ve read.

 

[Unkotare]

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/guides/A1en.pdf

^^^

 

[BackAgain]

No. In fact, quite the opposite.

They do anchor the non resident family members in applications for special consideration (like obtaining green cards).


Wrong again, ensign. You aren’t smart or knowledgeable enough to understand. That’s all.


You clearly aren’t tracking this conversation, ensign.

No unky; it’s not fake news. You simply can’t refute it despite the fact that you don’t like it.

 

[BackAgain]

^^^

That’s a citation to webpage which doesn’t say what you think it says. Quote it.

 

[Mac-7]

Did I say the founders screwed up? I don't believe I did. You just keep cascading your ignorant comments.

True

You were blaming the Civil War generation