• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Birthright Citizenship

Alferd_Packer

Philosopher
Alferd_Packer
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
8,746
This is a thread to discuss the issue related to the 14th amendment and the guarantee within that amendment to birthright citizenship.

I think that this is going to be a huge issue next year. I think that many of the right wingers who brought into the whole Obama Birther nonsense are going to jump onto this bandwagon en-masse. Furthermore, this will not be fought in Congress, although a few congressmen like Steve King of Iowa have brought it up. It will be fought on the local and state level. Here are some of the states that you can expect to see some action on this front from next year:

Arizona
Russell Pearce, the architect of the prison contractor benefits bill also known as SB1070 has been elected the new president of the state Senate. Further, the Arizona house has the biggest Republican margin in decades. Pearce is a Mormon with ties to neo Nazi groups. He has openly called for legislation to deny the children of illegal aliens born in Arizona basic rights such as a birth certificate.

Utah
They are gathering in Utah this weekend to focus on developing anti-immigration laws.
Utah Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, and Reps. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, Chris Herrod, R-Provo, and Steve Sandstrom, R-Orem, all staunch supporters of stricter immigration laws, will be on hand, as well as Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of the Arizona bill.
Click to expand...
Based on the fact that Pearce of Arizona is going to be there, I expect that he will be pushing for similar legislation attacking the 14th amendment. Not to stereotype, but the Mormon church doesn’t have the best record in their historical dealings with brown skinned people.

Texas
Texas State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) pre-filed seven anti-illegal immigration bills on this morning. These bills won’t be considered until next year, but the fact that he is getting them out now says a lot about the priority he is placing on them. One of the bills HB 292 is exactly the type of bill that Pearce is pushing for in Arizona. The bill attempts to deny the state from issuing a birth certificate to children of illegal aliens by redefining the term “Jurisdiction.”

Georgia
I’m including Georgia on this list because the newly elected Governor, Nathan Deal, is a former congressman who has tried to push similar bills through at the national level. He has also flirted with birtherism and I have no doubt that he will make a push for a similer laws attacking the 14th amendment.
 
Here is the text of the Texas Bill:

(d) A child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States if neither parent of the child is a United States citizen and
the child is born in the United States because a parent of the child
is:
(1) an ambassador, public minister, career diplomatic
or consular officer, or other diplomatic official or employee, who
has been accredited by a foreign government and accepted by the
president of the United States or the United States secretary of
state;
(2) an alien admitted to the United States as an
attendant, servant, personal employee, or family member of a person
described by Subdivision (1);
(3) an alien in immediate and continuous transit
through the United States, or entitled to pass in transit to and
from the United Nations headquarters district and foreign
countries;
(4) an alien crewman on a vessel or aircraft that lands
temporarily in the United States;
(5) an accredited representative of a foreign
government that is a member of an international organization
entitled to enjoy privileges, exemptions, and immunities under 22
U.S.C. Section 288 et seq. (the International Organizations
Immunities Act), or an alien who is an officer or employee of the
organization;
(6) an alien admitted to the United States as an
attendant, servant, personal employee, or family member of a person
described by Subdivision (5);
(7) an alien who has a residence in a foreign country
and does not intend to abandon the residence and is visiting the
United States temporarily for business or pleasure;
(8) an alien who is a member on active duty of the
armed forces or intelligence service of a foreign state; or
(9) an alien who is not eligible to receive a visa and
who is not admissible to the United States under 8 U.S.C. Section
1182.
Click to expand...
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Here is the text of the Texas Bill:
Click to expand...

Well, 1, 2, 5, and 6 seem to be what was clarified in Wong v Ark.

3 and 4 seems to be a reasonable, but debatable interpretation of the same.

7, 8, and 9 are just plain contradictory.

The real issue is, as you indicated, that a state (singular) is attempting to legally define who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (plural)
 
birthright citizenship should be only for folks who have at least one parent who is a citizen.

the idea that a pregant woman can come to the USA for vacation, have her child here, the child becomes a citizen, and then the child can sponsor her/his mother, is insane.
 
One thing I have never seen is the scope of this "problem" quantified. Just how many illegals are birthing their alien progeny on our soil, and thus sapping and impurifying our precious bodily fluids?
 
Thunder said:
birthright citizenship should be only for folks who have at least one parent who is a citizen.

the idea that a pregant woman can come to the USA for vacation, have her child here, the child becomes a citizen, and then the child can sponsor her/his mother, is insane.
Click to expand...


Insane? Really? And the dire consequences are...?
 
good question.

how many illegal aliens have used birthright citizenship of their child, to become legal?
 
Thunder said:
good question.

how many illegal aliens have used birthright citizenship of their child, to become legal?
Click to expand...


I would think that someone who is advocating this change might have some idea as to the scope of the problem they are trying to solve.
 
hgc said:
One thing I have never seen is the scope of this "problem" quantified. Just how many illegals are birthing their alien progeny on our soil, and thus sapping and impurifying our precious bodily fluids?
Click to expand...

I recall hearing a counter argument that most illegals that do give birth in the US have been here for over 9 months.

I don't recall where, so could not verify it, but it is something to consider. What percentage of 'anchor babies' are born to women who have been in the US for over 9 months. The importance is that they did not come to the US to have thier baby and get citizenship. They came to the US for the reasons most illegals do (jobs) and once settled got pregnant.
 
Thunder said:
birthright citizenship should be only for folks who have at least one parent who is a citizen.

the idea that a pregant woman can come to the USA for vacation, have her child here, the child becomes a citizen, and then the child can sponsor her/his mother, is insane.
Click to expand...

Why? Despite claims to the contrary, the “anchor baby” tactic is not very common. The section of the law that would apply to children born in the US and their illegal parents has a cap of 2000 a year who can be granted access in this manner, and we have not hit this cap in years. If they wait until the kid is an adult, you are basically talking about a plan that takes twenty years to come to fruition, and they can still be denied for any number of reasons.
 
Thunder said:
good question.

how many illegal aliens have used birthright citizenship of their child, to become legal?
Click to expand...

They can't. at least for over 23 years or so. The child has to grow up and become an adult citizen. Then in order to be sponsored the parents have to go back to their original country for at least 5 years before the child can sponsor their return.

Illegal alien parents with citizen children are simply deported with child in hand.
 
hgc said:
I would think that someone who is advocating this change might have some idea as to the scope of the problem they are trying to solve.
Click to expand...

Not if it's pure demagoguery. A lot more people complain about the estate tax than will ever have to pay it. Remeber the dicussions about Hillarycare in the 90's that was met with stories of hordes of Canadians coming to the state for healthcare? There is a lot of screaming about earmarks, but there just isn't much money there compared to the rest of the budget. And on and on it goes...
 
Thunder said:
birthright citizenship should be only for folks who have at least one parent who is a citizen.

the idea that a pregant woman can come to the USA for vacation, have her child here, the child becomes a citizen, and then the child can sponsor her/his mother, is insane.
Click to expand...

While I can understand your attitude on this, I think it is wrong headed and dangerous.

As I stated before, it would take well over 20 years for a child to be able to sponsor a parent.

Secondly, denying birthright citizenship to children opens up the very real probability that we will create a permanent underclass of statelss persons in this country, ripe for exploitation.

Unless that is what you want. . . .
 
Under the U.S. Constitution, there's another name for “anchor baby,” and that is "natural born U.S. citizen".

The only way to change that is to amend the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom