Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

[Flopper]

...The anchor baby myth has been disproved time and again but still it lives.There is no evidence that undocumented immigrants come to the U.S. in large numbers just to give birth...

Great. Then you won't mind if we close the loophole, given that we're just throwing time and energy at a myth.

...The fact is over 85% of these so called "anchor babies" are born years after the mother enters the county...

If they are born at any point in time between the moment of entry and the parents' acquisition of legal residency status, then that child is an Anchor Baby. Elapsed time has nothing to do with it.

...Without birthright citizenship, the citizenship status of a child depends on the laws and/or citizenship of their parents. Children born of illegal Mexican parents are not Mexican citizens. They become eligible for citizenship only after they reached 18 and have no criminal record and able to prove lineage. Their children do not automatically become Mexican citizens and are stateless...

Not our problem.

Their parents should have thought of that before setting foot upon United States soil.

...Further, repealing birthright citizenship would be incredibly unwise and unworkable, affecting everyone—not just immigrants. If birthright citizenship was eliminated, all American parents would have to establish the citizenship of their children, through often arduous, expensive, bureaucratic processes...

Once we establish conditions by which Drivers Licenses, State ID Cards, Voter Registration Cards, etc., can only be issued to citizens and legal residents...

Everybody is going to have to go through a one-time proof-of-citizenship effort, which a lot of folks already do, to obtain a passport, take a government job, etc...

Hell, we can even set up a Documentation Assistance Bureau designed to help disabled, immobile and low-income folks to complete the process, at no personal charge.

All that shit is detail that we can bat clean-up on when the time comes.

...The United States would likely have to create a national “birth registry,” and some sort of national ID to be used as proof of citizenship...

State-level processing will do just fine, once national standards are established - to facilitate uniformity and authenticity and validation, while leaving control in local hands.

... Americans could be denied citizenship because of a mistake. If that mistake was not corrected then their children and their children would be stateless. Repealing birthright citizenship would increase the size of the undocumented population. It would be ridiculous to impact every single American just to punish a few individuals...

No ex poste facto.

Plenty of supplemental means for providing proof and plenty of appellate and other processes as safeguards to fail-safe against such mistakes.

Minimal impact.

And, if it isolates and identifies 11-12 million Invaders, and sets things into motion so that future waves of untold millions can no longer try to pull the same shit...

It will be worth the effort, to bring our own credentialing processes and statute into the 21st Century, and to beat back the next wave of Invaders, and the next, and the next...

Without birthright citizenship, a person would have to prove that a parent is a citizen. What happens if the parent is dead, won't cooperate or the child doesn't know who his parents are. You will have another undocumented person to add to millions of illegal immigrants. And what happens when these children have more children? More undocumented people.

Rather than spend years trying to pass a constitutional amendment and forcing every new parent or child to prove parental citizenship, and deal with the additional undocumented children that would come out of this, why not just revise our immigration laws to eliminate loop holes, stop the hiring illegals, and enforce the law.

 

[Flopper]

...birthright citizenship will remain.

The events of the next two to three years should give us that answer.

No Constitutional Amendment will be passed within the next 2 or 3 years.

Hell- I wouldn't put good money on Congress even passing immigration legislation.

I was referring to a revisiting of the issue via SCOTUS...

I hear you. And the constitution is ridiculously clear on the matter:

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

With the court finding, definitively, that the children of illegals are 'persons' per the 14th amendment and under the jurisdiction of US law in the Plyer v. Doe decision.

Without a constitutional amendment, I can't see how the USSC would do anything but affirm the status quo.

The clause '...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." may prove to be the weak spot in the armor...

You do realize the problem if the Supreme Court says the United States does not have jurisdiction over a person parented by illegal immigrants in the US. How could an immigration court deport the child if the Supreme Court ruled the US doesn't have jurisdiction or for that matter, how could any US court try the person.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your desire to be rude to people and expect them to be doormat for you, is one of the reasons it has been so hard for me to accept your claim of being a REpublcan. But now I realize the truth. You are a republican. You are the Last Liberal Republican.

Don't be a door mat. Be polite. Don't be rude. Don't project your inner angst onto others. I will treat you as treat other.

 

[Care4all]

The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.

Congress in the Bill Clinton administration had no power to make its taxes retroactive ex post facto either.

But they did it anyway.

BTW, who is proposing that birth right citizenship be taken away from those who already have it (i.e. anchor babies already born in the U.S. to illegal aliens)?

The only proposals I've heard, are to change this policy so that anchor babies born here from now on, don't get it in the first place.

They make taxes retro all the time, Bush tax cuts of 2001 were retro active.....

 

[Correll]

Perhaps a E.O. ruling that no illegal parents will be given legal residency to stay with their anchor babies. Parents want the kid to have US citizenship, then they have to leave them behind while they return to their home.

An illegal alien woman has a baby in this country. The child is a citizen under the application of the law as it stands now. If the parent is deported has no impact on the citizenship of the child. If the parent is deported and takes the child - the child is still a citizen.


>>>>

But it ends one of the purposes of Anchor Babies and one the ways of illegals gaining legal protection to stay.

So, that's something.

 

[Correll]

Your desire to be rude to people and expect them to be doormat for you, is one of the reasons it has been so hard for me to accept your claim of being a REpublcan. But now I realize the truth. You are a republican. You are the Last Liberal Republican.

Don't be a door mat. Be polite. Don't be rude. Don't project your inner angst onto others. I will treat you as treat other.

Being polite to someone who is being rude to you is being a doormat.

Fuck that shit.

Your nonsense about being polite has been repeatedly explained to you.

Your continued denial of an obvious truth is either willful self deception or intellectual dishonesty.

It is not "polite" to assume that there is no reasonable way that anyone could reasonably agree with you, AND THEN assume the only possible explanation is some deep personal flaw in the OTHER PERSON, AND THEN call that person a name.


That thinking leads to you personally attacking people on the weakest of excuses and, to be honest, being a completely smug jerk as you do it, on top of the insult itself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your desire to be rude to people and expect them to be doormat for you, is one of the reasons it has been so hard for me to accept your claim of being a REpublcan. But now I realize the truth. You are a republican. You are the Last Liberal Republican.

Don't be a door mat. Be polite. Don't be rude. Don't project your inner angst onto others. I will treat you as treat other.

Being polite to someone who is being rude to you is being a doormat. Fuck that shit. Your nonsense about being polite has been repeatedly explained to you. Your continued denial of an obvious truth is either willful self deception or intellectual dishonesty. It is not "polite" to assume that there is no reasonable way that anyone could reasonably agree with you, AND THEN assume the only possible explanation is some deep personal flaw in the OTHER PERSON, AND THEN call that person a name. That thinking leads to you personally attacking people on the weakest of excuses and, to be honest, being a completely smug jerk as you do it, on top of the insult itself.

Always the other guy's fault, according to a far right reactionary like you. The fact is that you want to act like a jerk. Go for it, and be held accountable. We have done that before and will continue doing it. Carry one, Jeeves.

 

[Correll]

Your desire to be rude to people and expect them to be doormat for you, is one of the reasons it has been so hard for me to accept your claim of being a REpublcan. But now I realize the truth. You are a republican. You are the Last Liberal Republican.

Don't be a door mat. Be polite. Don't be rude. Don't project your inner angst onto others. I will treat you as treat other.

Being polite to someone who is being rude to you is being a doormat. Fuck that shit. Your nonsense about being polite has been repeatedly explained to you. Your continued denial of an obvious truth is either willful self deception or intellectual dishonesty. It is not "polite" to assume that there is no reasonable way that anyone could reasonably agree with you, AND THEN assume the only possible explanation is some deep personal flaw in the OTHER PERSON, AND THEN call that person a name. That thinking leads to you personally attacking people on the weakest of excuses and, to be honest, being a completely smug jerk as you do it, on top of the insult itself.

Always the other guy's fault, according to a far right reactionary like you. The fact is that you want to act like a jerk. Go for it, and be held accountable. We have done that before and will continue doing it. Carry one, Jeeves.

I explained my reasoning in detail.

You didn't address it at all and simply repeated your position.

Once again you are engaged in one of your SOP, ie Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

SO I will re post my very clear explanation as to why, in this reoccurring situation, you and your ilk are the jerks, not me.


Being polite to someone who is being rude to you is being a doormat.

Fuck that shit.

Your nonsense about being polite has been repeatedly explained to you.

Your continued denial of an obvious truth is either willful self deception or intellectual dishonesty.


It is not "polite" to assume that there is no reasonable way that anyone could reasonably agree with you, AND THEN assume the only possible explanation is some deep personal flaw in the OTHER PERSON, AND THEN call that person a name.

That thinking leads to you personally attacking people on the weakest of excuses and, to be honest, being a completely smug jerk as you do it, on top of the insult itself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

blah blah blah correll

You are an angry far right non-mainstream reactionary who wants to yell and be angry.

Go for it.

 

[Syriusly]

Perhaps a E.O. ruling that no illegal parents will be given legal residency to stay with their anchor babies. Parents want the kid to have US citizenship, then they have to leave them behind while they return to their home.

An illegal alien woman has a baby in this country. The child is a citizen under the application of the law as it stands now. If the parent is deported has no impact on the citizenship of the child. If the parent is deported and takes the child - the child is still a citizen.


>>>>

But it ends one of the purposes of Anchor Babies and one the ways of illegals gaining legal protection to stay.

So, that's something.

Except of course- having a child who is an illegal- provides no legal protection to stay in the country.

Parents who are not legal residents but have U.S. citizen children are regularly deported. Tough on the family but completely legal.

How is that Constitutional Amendment coming?

 

[Syriusly]

...The anchor baby myth has been disproved time and again but still it lives.There is no evidence that undocumented immigrants come to the U.S. in large numbers just to give birth...

Great. Then you won't mind if we close the loophole, given that we're just throwing time and energy at a myth.

...The fact is over 85% of these so called "anchor babies" are born years after the mother enters the county...

If they are born at any point in time between the moment of entry and the parents' acquisition of legal residency status, then that child is an Anchor Baby. Elapsed time has nothing to do with it.

...Without birthright citizenship, the citizenship status of a child depends on the laws and/or citizenship of their parents. Children born of illegal Mexican parents are not Mexican citizens. They become eligible for citizenship only after they reached 18 and have no criminal record and able to prove lineage. Their children do not automatically become Mexican citizens and are stateless...

Not our problem.

Their parents should have thought of that before setting foot upon United States soil.

...Further, repealing birthright citizenship would be incredibly unwise and unworkable, affecting everyone—not just immigrants. If birthright citizenship was eliminated, all American parents would have to establish the citizenship of their children, through often arduous, expensive, bureaucratic processes...

Once we establish conditions by which Drivers Licenses, State ID Cards, Voter Registration Cards, etc., can only be issued to citizens and legal residents...

Everybody is going to have to go through a one-time proof-of-citizenship effort, which a lot of folks already do, to obtain a passport, take a government job, etc...

Hell, we can even set up a Documentation Assistance Bureau designed to help disabled, immobile and low-income folks to complete the process, at no personal charge.

All that shit is detail that we can bat clean-up on when the time comes.

...The United States would likely have to create a national “birth registry,” and some sort of national ID to be used as proof of citizenship...

State-level processing will do just fine, once national standards are established - to facilitate uniformity and authenticity and validation, while leaving control in local hands.

... Americans could be denied citizenship because of a mistake. If that mistake was not corrected then their children and their children would be stateless. Repealing birthright citizenship would increase the size of the undocumented population. It would be ridiculous to impact every single American just to punish a few individuals...

No ex poste facto.

Plenty of supplemental means for providing proof and plenty of appellate and other processes as safeguards to fail-safe against such mistakes.

Minimal impact.

And, if it isolates and identifies 11-12 million Invaders, and sets things into motion so that future waves of untold millions can no longer try to pull the same shit...

It will be worth the effort, to bring our own credentialing processes and statute into the 21st Century, and to beat back the next wave of Invaders, and the next, and the next...

Without birthright citizenship, a person would have to prove that a parent is a citizen. What happens if the parent is dead, won't cooperate or the child doesn't know who his parents are. You will have another undocumented person to add to millions of illegal immigrants. And what happens when these children have more children? More undocumented people.

.

One of the beauties of birthright citizenship is its simplicity- if a child is born here the child is a citizen.

As you noted- changing that to require that the parents have legal status would require a new level of bureacracy- i.e. more government.

For example- when my child was born, all my wife and I had to provide were our names for the birth certificate- and a birth certificate in the U.S. is sufficient to establish citizenship- but in a U.S. where my child has to prove his eligiblity to be a citizen- he would have to provide not only his citizenship- he would have to prove that both myself and my wife are either citizens or legal residents.

How would he do that? Copies of our passports? What if we don't have passports? Birth certificates would no longer suffice to prove citizenship- so how would anyone without a passport prove their U.S. citizenship?

IF you enjoy dealing with the IRS- why then I believe you will really enjoy having new requirements for us all to prove our citizenship.

 

[Flopper]

...The anchor baby myth has been disproved time and again but still it lives.There is no evidence that undocumented immigrants come to the U.S. in large numbers just to give birth...

Great. Then you won't mind if we close the loophole, given that we're just throwing time and energy at a myth.

...The fact is over 85% of these so called "anchor babies" are born years after the mother enters the county...

If they are born at any point in time between the moment of entry and the parents' acquisition of legal residency status, then that child is an Anchor Baby. Elapsed time has nothing to do with it.

...Without birthright citizenship, the citizenship status of a child depends on the laws and/or citizenship of their parents. Children born of illegal Mexican parents are not Mexican citizens. They become eligible for citizenship only after they reached 18 and have no criminal record and able to prove lineage. Their children do not automatically become Mexican citizens and are stateless...

Not our problem.

Their parents should have thought of that before setting foot upon United States soil.

...Further, repealing birthright citizenship would be incredibly unwise and unworkable, affecting everyone—not just immigrants. If birthright citizenship was eliminated, all American parents would have to establish the citizenship of their children, through often arduous, expensive, bureaucratic processes...

Once we establish conditions by which Drivers Licenses, State ID Cards, Voter Registration Cards, etc., can only be issued to citizens and legal residents...

Everybody is going to have to go through a one-time proof-of-citizenship effort, which a lot of folks already do, to obtain a passport, take a government job, etc...

Hell, we can even set up a Documentation Assistance Bureau designed to help disabled, immobile and low-income folks to complete the process, at no personal charge.

All that shit is detail that we can bat clean-up on when the time comes.

...The United States would likely have to create a national “birth registry,” and some sort of national ID to be used as proof of citizenship...

State-level processing will do just fine, once national standards are established - to facilitate uniformity and authenticity and validation, while leaving control in local hands.

... Americans could be denied citizenship because of a mistake. If that mistake was not corrected then their children and their children would be stateless. Repealing birthright citizenship would increase the size of the undocumented population. It would be ridiculous to impact every single American just to punish a few individuals...

No ex poste facto.

Plenty of supplemental means for providing proof and plenty of appellate and other processes as safeguards to fail-safe against such mistakes.

Minimal impact.

And, if it isolates and identifies 11-12 million Invaders, and sets things into motion so that future waves of untold millions can no longer try to pull the same shit...

It will be worth the effort, to bring our own credentialing processes and statute into the 21st Century, and to beat back the next wave of Invaders, and the next, and the next...

Without birthright citizenship, a person would have to prove that a parent is a citizen. What happens if the parent is dead, won't cooperate or the child doesn't know who his parents are. You will have another undocumented person to add to millions of illegal immigrants. And what happens when these children have more children? More undocumented people.

.

One of the beauties of birthright citizenship is its simplicity- if a child is born here the child is a citizen.

As you noted- changing that to require that the parents have legal status would require a new level of bureacracy- i.e. more government.

For example- when my child was born, all my wife and I had to provide were our names for the birth certificate- and a birth certificate in the U.S. is sufficient to establish citizenship- but in a U.S. where my child has to prove his eligiblity to be a citizen- he would have to provide not only his citizenship- he would have to prove that both myself and my wife are either citizens or legal residents.

How would he do that? Copies of our passports? What if we don't have passports? Birth certificates would no longer suffice to prove citizenship- so how would anyone without a passport prove their U.S. citizenship?

IF you enjoy dealing with the IRS- why then I believe you will really enjoy having new requirements for us all to prove our citizenship.

Exactly. Nations that grant citizenship based on lineage invariable have a two tiered system by which some people are granted nationality based on birth with limited rights and privileges and others are granted citizenship based on parentage. The laws are complex and the bureaucracy is mine boggling.

Repealing birthright citizenship would be un-American. The 14th Amendment is not just another immigration policy. It defines who we are as a nation, and categorically rejects the notion that America is a country club led by elites who get to pick and choose who can become members. Repealing birthright citizenship would create a class of second-class citizens which exist in so many countries today, a class that would have no vote, limited protection under the law, ineligible to obtain citizenship for their children, work in most government jobs, or even travel under a US passport. No longer could Americans say any American child can grow up to be president.

 

[Kondor3]

...How would he do that?...

If we commit to this, then everyone has to prove their status, one time, and establish a baseline that can be periodically updated. It's not that complicated.

 

[Syriusly]

...How would he do that?...

If we commit to this, then everyone has to prove their status, one time, and establish a baseline that can be periodically updated. It's not that complicated.

Exactly- all it would take would be requiring everyone to obtain a National ID card to establish their status.......

 

[Kondor3]

...How would he do that?...

If we commit to this, then everyone has to prove their status, one time, and establish a baseline that can be periodically updated. It's not that complicated.

Exactly- all it would take would be requiring everyone to obtain a National ID card to establish their status.......

Or State-level cards issued against a set of national standards and facilitating nationwide inter-operability...

 

[Syriusly]

...How would he do that?...

If we commit to this, then everyone has to prove their status, one time, and establish a baseline that can be periodically updated. It's not that complicated.

Exactly- all it would take would be requiring everyone to obtain a National ID card to establish their status.......

Or State-level cards issued against a set of national standards and facilitating nationwide inter-operability...

Sure- either way- government issued- and required national identity cards

 

[Flopper]

...How would he do that?...

If we commit to this, then everyone has to prove their status, one time, and establish a baseline that can be periodically updated. It's not that complicated.

Like every thing Trump proposes, It's going to be fast and easy. However, the facts tell a very different story.

A recent national survey from the NYU School of Law reveals that over 20 million American citizen do not have readily available documentary proof of citizenship. Many more – primarily women – do not have any proof of citizenship with their current name. Still others that don't know who their parents are have no way proving the citizenship of their parents. The survey also showed that millions of American citizens do not have government-issued photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport. Finally, the survey demonstrated that certain groups – primarily poor, elderly, and minority citizens – are less likely to possess any of these forms of documentation that prove citizenship than the general population.

Millions of couples that have children will just get a birth certificate for their child, some planing on getting the necessary documentation to prove their citizenship, others to busy to bother with it will leave that chore to their children. One study estimates that if we abolished birthright citizenship today, by 2050 we would have 24 million native born Americans without citizenship. As the years pass the numbers would grow and eventually we would have to create a legally recognized US nationality for native born Americans without citizenship such as in most European countries.

The problem we have with illegal immigration is due primarily to the lack of enforcement, the loopholes in laws that allow illegals to live in the country indefinitely. The government can certainly fix this problem far more effectively and easier than passing a constitutional amendment to redefine citizenship which would not address the major causes of illegal immigration.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...How would he do that?...

If we commit to this, then everyone has to prove their status, one time, and establish a baseline that can be periodically updated. It's not that complicated.

Like every thing Trump proposes, It's going to be fast and easy. However, the facts tell a very different story.

A recent national survey from the NYU School of Law reveals that over 20 million American citizen do not have readily available documentary proof of citizenship. Many more – primarily women – do not have any proof of citizenship with their current name. Still others that don't know who their parents are have no way proving the citizenship of their parents. The survey also showed that millions of American citizens do not have government-issued photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport. Finally, the survey demonstrated that certain groups – primarily poor, elderly, and minority citizens – are less likely to possess any of these forms of documentation that prove citizenship than the general population.

Millions of couples that have children will just get a birth certificate for their child, some planing on getting the necessary documentation to prove their citizenship, others to busy to bother with it will leave that chore to their children. One study estimates that if we abolished birthright citizenship today, by 2050 we would have 24 million native born Americans without citizenship. As the years pass the numbers would grow and eventually we would have to create a legally recognized US nationality for native born Americans without citizenship such as in most European countries.

The problem we have with illegal immigration is due primarily to the lack of enforcement, the loopholes in laws that allow illegals to live in the country indefinitely. The government can certainly fix this problem far more effectively and easier than passing a constitutional amendment to redefine citizenship which would not address the major causes of illegal immigration.

Such as Congress passing comprehensive immigration reform.

 

[Kondor3]

...Such as Congress passing comprehensive immigration reform.

In LibSpeak, "comprehensive immigration reform" = Shamnesty.

No thank you.

Very large numbers of Americans want the 11,000,000 Invaders (Illegal Aliens) gone.

There are several ways to accomplish that. Trump's is work-able, but frightfully expensive, and overkill, compared to the alternatives.

In truth, there's very little that's wrong with the collection of immigration law that we presently operate under.

It can take a lot of time and money to complete the process?

Excellent !

That's the whole point of the exercise.

A century or more ago, we had a fraction of the population we have now, an economy and society just beginning to awaken to its potential, jobs for everyone who wanted one, land for everyone who wanted some, and an insatiable demand for labor and talent to complete the process of building an infrastructure and a nation on a continental scale.

Well, that build-out is long-since completed, the descendants of those builders have multiplied over the generations, and we no longer need immigrants the way we once did.

Oh, to be sure, sentiments like "...give me your poor, your huddled masses... your wretched refuse..." are certainly inspiring, and a charming tradition that we can try to honor.

Unfortunately, it's also an anachronism in today's Real World... we no longer have that need... and fresh waves of new immigrants are not as welcome as they once were.

Shit happens... circumstances change... old understandings dissolve and are relegated to history books... which seems to be what has happened on the immigration front.

We can't keep taking-in fresh tidal waves forever, nor should we. Others don't.

Only our very unwise and embarrassingly emotive and slavish devotion to an old, charming, and now-harmful anchronism drives us to continue to do so,..

Like some well-intentioned but myopic, foolhardy, self-destructive exercise in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

Nobody wanted to see the day come, when we had to hang a "No Vacancy" sign on the Statue of Liberty, but we're there now, and it's time to recognize and act on that.

The cold, hard truth of the matter is, that we're pretty much "full up" - we can't even take care of our own properly, and we don't need fresh tidal waves of new mouths to feed.

Both of our major political parties want to keep the 11,000,000 Illegal Aliens here - each for their own nefarious reasons - and to hell with what the American People want.

Well, we appear to be seeing the American People rearing-up and telling the Ruling Class that The People have had enough of their shit, and that the Invaders must go.

Which explains why a dangerous outsider like Trump is doing so well at the moment... because none of the Establishment types has the balls to give voice to the concept.

Strange, interesting, dangerous times we live in...

 

[Kondor3]

...How would he do that?...

If we commit to this, then everyone has to prove their status, one time, and establish a baseline that can be periodically updated. It's not that complicated.

Like every thing Trump proposes, It's going to be fast and easy. However, the facts tell a very different story...

Trump is a dangerous demagogue and not a serious contender with such subject matter.

...One study estimates that if we abolished birthright citizenship today, by 2050 we would have 24 million native born Americans without citizenship...

Oh, to be sure, the doom-and-gloom naysayers will serve-up a hundred horrific scenarios to tell us why we cannot and should not insist upon establishing such a baseline.

Convenient boogeyman stories, similar to those laid down by right-wingers as cautionary tales about ObamaCare, eh?

At some point or another, as we move into the future, it is going to become necessary for every American to establish an identity baseline, for a variety of purposes.

Might as well avoid the "Christmas rush" and get it over with sooner rather than later; a project that would be timely, in light of our desire to cull the herd of Illegals.

And, when it comes to enforcement, well... we take a page from the ObamaCare play-book for this, as well - engaging the IRS to enforce identity baseline goals.

If your identity card doesn't classify you as a citizen, then you're out of luck, with a great many things, and you'll go home on your own, and tell your friends to stay home, too.