PDA

View Full Version : Arizona bill would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants


Spiritwalker
06-15-2010, 11:07 AM
OK.. I support "asking for papers".. no issue at all. Heck.. do it here in NC...All for it.

BUT.. I don't know about this one. I "think" I understand the rational behind it.. but I don't know that I could support this.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/arizona.immigration.children/index.html?hpt=C1

NN) -- A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.

The bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation's toughest immigration law.

John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.

Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status.

Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative, strongly opposes the bill.

"Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of the U.S. Constitution," she said.

"While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal government," said Sinema. "Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona."

Arizona Republicans are expected to introduce the legislation this fall.

County Mike
06-15-2010, 11:32 AM
I'm OK with that too. It's a loophole that illegals are taking advantage of. If they can legally become citizens, then their kids will be citizens as well. Otherwise, illegal is illegal. Having a baby in America shouldn't instantly grant you citizenship.

Vizion
06-15-2010, 12:24 PM
Taking advantage of...? Ya think? :blink:

GET RID OF THAT LAW!

NateR
06-15-2010, 12:26 PM
I'm OK with that too. It's a loophole that illegals are taking advantage of. If they can legally become citizens, then their kids will be citizens as well. Otherwise, illegal is illegal. Having a baby in America shouldn't instantly grant you citizenship.

Agreed. It's a loophole that needs to be closed quickly.

The other options are:

1. Deport the parents and leave the kids as orphans.
2. Allow the parents to stay in the country to care for their US citizen child and create a backdoor for people to enter this country illegally and quickly establish a foothold so that they never have to leave.

Denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is simply the most logical and humane solution.

Chuck
06-15-2010, 12:43 PM
Taking advantage of...? Ya think? :blink:

GET RID OF THAT LAW!

What's wrong with it?

I would support it without a problem.

rockdawg21
06-15-2010, 12:45 PM
Yup. I work in a lot of the border towns of Texas (Laredo, Eagle Pass, Del Rio) and pregnant women are constantly coming to the U.S. to give birth to their children so they can be American citizens.

A further thing that many people may not know is once the child is 21 years of age, they may petition for their parents to come to the U.S. as well as any siblings who are 21 and younger. Here's some more information about U.S. Citizens and how they can petition for family:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1d383e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1d383e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD

On another note, in a way, this kind of makes me think of the Catholic belief of Original Sin - due to Adam & Eve's mistake, the rest should pay and repent. In this case, the child of the illegal has also committed a crime although they directly hadn't anything to do with it. Ironic considering most Mexicans are Catholics.

TexasRN
06-15-2010, 12:55 PM
Yup. I work in a lot of the border towns of Texas (Laredo, Eagle Pass, Del Rio) and pregnant women are constantly coming to the U.S. to give birth to their children so they can be American citizens.

A further thing that many people may not know is once the child is 21 years of age, they may petition for their parents to come to the U.S. as well as any siblings who are 21 and younger. Here's some more information about U.S. Citizens and how they can petition for family:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1d383e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1d383e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD

On another note, in a way, this kind of makes me think of the Catholic belief of Original Sin - due to Adam & Eve's mistake, the rest should pay and repent. In this case, the child of the illegal has also committed a crime although they directly hadn't anything to do with it. Ironic considering most Mexicans are Catholics.

Yep. When I worked labor and delivery in TX we had them coming in all the time with no insurance, no way to pay for the hospital services they were receiving, and then their baby was a US citizen. All paid for by my taxes.....



~Amy

J.B.
06-15-2010, 01:05 PM
There are going to be people who get behind this, and there have been others who have tried to fight this in the past, but I don't think it's ever going to fly.

Not only does it directly go against federal law, but it goes against a principal that is widely recognized amongst most of the world's major countries. We can combat the problem with "anchor-babies" by overhauling our federal immigration policies.

SB 1070 is hard to logically argue against without sounding silly, but this is taking it to a level that is too easy to spin. The left will eat this up and make us look cold-hearted, and as if we are attacking helpless babies who had no choice in where they were born, and in a way they would be right. That kind of emotional argument can sway a lot of the less informed people and undermine the greater concerns in this highly complex issue.

I absolutely think we need to close the loophole of "anchor-babies" being able to bring their entire families here, but we don't need to deny a person's birthright citizenship to do that. What we need is real reform in Washington, and along the border, like we have needed all along.

TexasRN
06-15-2010, 01:22 PM
There are going to be people who get behind this, and there have been others who have tried to fight this in the past, but I don't think it's ever going to fly.

Not only does it directly go against federal law, but it goes against a principal that is widely recognized amongst most of the world's major countries. We can combat the problem with "anchor-babies" by overhauling our federal immigration policies.

SB 1070 is hard to logically argue against without sounding silly, but this is taking it to a level that is too easy to spin. The left will eat this up and make us look cold-hearted, and as if we are attacking helpless babies who had no choice in where they were born, and in a way they would be right. That kind of emotional argument can sway a lot of the less informed people and undermine the greater concerns in this highly complex issue.

I absolutely think we need to close the loophole of "anchor-babies" being able to bring their entire families here, but we don't need to deny a person's birthright citizenship to do that. What we need is real reform in Washington, and along the border, like we have needed all along.

I have no problem with foreigners who are here legally having babies. I know of foreign companies who send their workers here when the wife is close to term so she can deliver in the US just for that reason.

My problem is with the illegals who come here just to have an "anchor" baby. The loophole needs to be closed or we will continue to have pregnant women risking their lives by coming over here to deliver. Why don't the human rights groups see it that way? By closing the loophole we will actually be protecting the health of the pregnant women. It's dangerous to be smuggled in to the US. I don't have figures but I know that many people die from dehydration or from being tricked by the "coyotes" who have promised to bring them safely here.


~Amy

J.B.
06-15-2010, 01:52 PM
I have no problem with foreigners who are here legally having babies. I know of foreign companies who send their workers here when the wife is close to term so she can deliver in the US just for that reason.

My problem is with the illegals who come here just to have an "anchor" baby. The loophole needs to be closed or we will continue to have pregnant women risking their lives by coming over here to deliver. Why don't the human rights groups see it that way? By closing the loophole we will actually be protecting the health of the pregnant women. It's dangerous to be smuggled in to the US. I don't have figures but I know that many people die from dehydration or from being tricked by the "coyotes" who have promised to bring them safely here.


~Amy

Oh I agree with closing the loophole, but we need to do that with comprehensive immigration reform. People are going to find ways to smuggle themselves here no matter what. They pay coyotes a lot of money to be smuggled here for a myriad of reasons, and that is not going to stop until we completely crack down on illegal immigrants nationwide.

If a person is born here, I don't have a problem with them being a citizen, even if their parents are not, but that doesn't mean we have to allow them to bring their entire family here when they are adults. Also, just because we say they are not citizens here and start denying them birth certificates doesn't mean that child would be automatically granted citizenship in their parent's home country. That's a pretty gray area, and I don't think that is entirely fair to the child who is innocent of any wrongdoing.

TexasRN
06-15-2010, 01:59 PM
Oh I agree with closing the loophole, but we need to do that with comprehensive immigration reform. People are going to find ways to smuggle themselves here no matter what. They pay coyotes a lot of money to be smuggled here for a myriad of reasons, and that is not going to stop until we completely crack down on illegal immigrants nationwide.

If a person is born here, I don't have a problem with them being a citizen, even if their parents are not, but that doesn't mean we have to allow them to bring their entire family here when they are adults. Also, just because we say they are not citizens here and start denying them birth certificates doesn't mean that child would be automatically granted citizenship in their parent's home country. That's a pretty gray area, and I don't think that is entirely fair to the child who is innocent of any wrongdoing.

I see. Yes, we need a huge amount of immigration reform. I don't have all the answers, I just know that the current system sucks and we have got to do something about it. I am all for being more strict than less strict.


~Amy

J.B.
06-15-2010, 02:09 PM
I see. Yes, we need a huge amount of immigration reform. I don't have all the answers, I just know that the current system sucks and we have got to do something about it. I am all for being more strict than less strict.


~Amy

I agree, we gotta crack down. It's a giant mess.

Even with SB 1070, I agree with it, but it's really gonna end up being more of a problem for Arizona to pay to lock up the illegals we catch if we don't get I.C.E. to actually start deporting these people and tighten up security along the border.

rearnakedchoke
06-15-2010, 03:29 PM
doesn't the constitution state that being born in the US makes you a citizen? i doubt that have had a ruling on this in the past (or else it would have been brought up) ...

flo
06-15-2010, 04:27 PM
doesn't the constitution state that being born in the US makes you a citizen? i doubt that have had a ruling on this in the past (or else it would have been brought up) ...
Yes, they'd have to amend the constitution to change the law. Although this provision was originally written with the intent to bestow citizenship on the offspring of slaves, it is worded generally so includes anyone born in the United States.

flo
06-15-2010, 04:34 PM
It's the opening provision in the 14th amendment:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

They would need a 2/3 majority in congress to change it.

Bonnie
06-15-2010, 05:14 PM
I'm OK with that too. It's a loophole that illegals are taking advantage of. If they can legally become citizens, then their kids will be citizens as well. Otherwise, illegal is illegal. Having a baby in America shouldn't instantly grant you citizenship.

Totally agree! If they need to change the Constitution to close this loophole, then change it! The sooner the better too! I don't think our forefathers intended this law to be used and abused like it has been.

Agreed. It's a loophole that needs to be closed quickly.

The other options are:

1. Deport the parents and leave the kids as orphans.
2. Allow the parents to stay in the country to care for their US citizen child and create a backdoor for people to enter this country illegally and quickly establish a foothold so that they never have to leave.

Denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is simply the most logical and humane solution.

Exactly, Nate, it would be more humane. Isn't that what's happening now? The children whose parents are being deported--people are crying "How can you separate a child from it's parents?" So they enter here illegally, push out a kid on American soil so it's a "citizen", and then use that to get the sympathy vote from the blind bleeding heart morons in this country. So it is the most humane thing we can do to avoid such a heartwrenching scene later.

There are going to be people who get behind this, and there have been others who have tried to fight this in the past, but I don't think it's ever going to fly.

Not only does it directly go against federal law, but it goes against a principal that is widely recognized amongst most of the world's major countries. We can combat the problem with "anchor-babies" by overhauling our federal immigration policies.

SB 1070 is hard to logically argue against without sounding silly, but this is taking it to a level that is too easy to spin. The left will eat this up and make us look cold-hearted, and as if we are attacking helpless babies who had no choice in where they were born, and in a way they would be right. That kind of emotional argument can sway a lot of the less informed people and undermine the greater concerns in this highly complex issue.

I absolutely think we need to close the loophole of "anchor-babies" being able to bring their entire families here, but we don't need to deny a person's birthright citizenship to do that. What we need is real reform in Washington, and along the border, like we have needed all along.

We are already being portrayed as "coldblooded and heartless" when they send the parents back and leave the children here, or as we've seen most recently, the children who were brought here illegally and grew up here going all through school and are now attending college but now are being threatened with deportation. They say, "But I've lived here, gone to school here my whole life...." Even though we are not the ones who created this situation and put this child in this position of now being deported, we are the ones who are portrayed as "heartless". So for us, it's a lose-lose situation as things stand.

So they need to get rid of the "anchor-baby" law all together and it will solve leaving these children as orphans when we send their parents back. And, if Congress and the President (who ever is president) will start doing THEIR jobs and protecting us, the people they are supposed to be working for, and really do something about illegal immigration, then we won't have the second scenario of sending grown children back to Mexico when all they've ever known is being American.

I'm not heartless and I'm not coldblooded, but sometimes tough decisions have to be made for the overall good of everyone. When it comes down to OUR rights and OUR safety in OUR country versus the so-called rights of an invading people living here illegally, there should not even be a question or discussion about whose rights should be protected.

I notice people want to use the Constitution when it serves their purpose, but want to ignore the Consitution when it doesn't! They can't continue to have it both ways!

Miss Foxy
06-15-2010, 05:58 PM
I think it's a very good idea.

atomdanger
06-15-2010, 07:29 PM
I am ALL for it.

Being born here shouldn't mean you're a US Citizen.
Take the proper avenues.

All that happens, is people are coming here illegally,
having kids, and the kids are US Citizens? Sounds like bull**** to me.

atomdanger
06-15-2010, 07:30 PM
I see. Yes, we need a huge amount of immigration reform. I don't have all the answers, I just know that the current system sucks and we have got to do something about it. I am all for being more strict than less strict.


~Amy

+1

J.B.
06-15-2010, 09:34 PM
We are already being portrayed as "coldblooded and heartless" when they send the parents back and leave the children here, or as we've seen most recently, the children who were brought here illegally and grew up here going all through school and are now attending college but now are being threatened with deportation. They say, "But I've lived here, gone to school here my whole life...." Even though we are not the ones who created this situation and put this child in this position of now being deported, we are the ones who are portrayed as "heartless". So for us, it's a lose-lose situation as things stand.

So they need to get rid of the "anchor-baby" law all together and it will solve leaving these children as orphans when we send their parents back. And, if Congress and the President (who ever is president) will start doing THEIR jobs and protecting us, the people they are supposed to be working for, and really do something about illegal immigration, then we won't have the second scenario of sending grown children back to Mexico when all they've ever known is being American.

I'm not heartless and I'm not coldblooded, but sometimes tough decisions have to be made for the overall good of everyone. When it comes down to OUR rights and OUR safety in OUR country versus the so-called rights of an invading people living here illegally, there should not even be a question or discussion about whose rights should be protected.

I notice people want to use the Constitution when it serves their purpose, but want to ignore the Consitution when it doesn't! They can't continue to have it both ways!

There is no perfect answer to this situation, and this isn't the first time lawmakers have tried to fight against "anchor-babies", but denying citizenship to an infant who is born here is just not the way to go in my opinion. I don't know about the college kids you speak of who have been threatened with deportation, but clearly it's not happening on any large scale because I.C.E. can't even manage to deport the ones who are actually dangerous criminals, let alone mount some rogue crackdown on people who are by law full fledged American citizens.

The government can deter illegal immigration and basically destroy the abuses presented by "anchor-babies" by simply overhauling federal law. We don't need to take it to the level of denying citizenship to those who are born here to do that. Does that mean that some may end up in the system? Yes, it does, but as I said in the beginning there is no perfect answer to this, and I don't claim to have one.

Being born here shouldn't mean you're a US Citizen.
Take the proper avenues.


The only "avenue" an unborn child knows is "uterus ave".

flo
06-15-2010, 10:15 PM
The only "avenue" an unborn child knows is "uterus ave".

:laugh::laugh: I literally "laughed out loud" reading that :-)

You rock, JB.

J.B.
06-15-2010, 11:05 PM
:laugh::laugh: I literally "laughed out loud" reading that :-)

You rock, JB.

:laugh: thanks flo

Bonnie
06-16-2010, 01:36 AM
There is no perfect answer to this situation, and this isn't the first time lawmakers have tried to fight against "anchor-babies", but denying citizenship to an infant who is born here is just not the way to go in my opinion. I don't know about the college kids you speak of who have been threatened with deportation, but clearly it's not happening on any large scale because I.C.E. can't even manage to deport the ones who are actually dangerous criminals, let alone mount some rogue crackdown on people who are by law full fledged American citizens.

There have been a couple of stories like this on the news the last few months. And they are not full fledged American citizens; that's the problem, they came over here illegally with their parents and were allowed to enter our school systems going all the way thru and are now in college. I don't remember the exact details of how these particular college students got caught or found out (however you want to phrase it), but now they face deportation or did at the time of the news story. Who knows, maybe some allowance has been made for them to stay and become "legal". I feel for those kids, they've known only America and feel they are American. For all intents and purposes they are; they just don't have the legal documentation to lawfully prove it and make it so.

The government can deter illegal immigration and basically destroy the abuses presented by "anchor-babies" by simply overhauling federal law. We don't need to take it to the level of denying citizenship to those who are born here to do that. Does that mean that some may end up in the system? Yes, it does, but as I said in the beginning there is no perfect answer to this, and I don't claim to have one.

JB, I don't have all the answers either, but allowing "anchor-babies" is not the answer in my opinion. Any child born in a foreign country whether their parents are there legally or illegally should be considered the same nationality as the parents and a citizen of the country where the parents are from (where they make their permanent "legal" home). That law in the Constitution that Flo quoted is being used as a "reward" by people who have illegally entered our country.

I'll use an analogy in the form of what's currently going on in the Gulf. If BP were able to plug up every hole on that pipe but leaves one hole unplugged, oil is still going to be leaking from that pipe. If we don't get rid of all these loopholes in our immigration and citizenship laws including anchor-babies, some one or some group is going to find a way to get through that hole and we're going to end up with the same problem.

Just like you mentioned in a previous post, it's not going to do Arizona much good to round up all these illegals if they're not going to deport them. These half-ass measures aren't going to cut it if we're serious about stopping illegal immigration and doing something about all the illegals already here.

Chuck
06-16-2010, 01:54 AM
I wonder how our current law compares to other countries?

Anybody have any idea? If an illegal immigrant in a different country has a baby are they automatically citizens?

I have a hard time believing other countries handle this like the U.S. is.

J.B.
06-16-2010, 02:05 AM
There have been a couple of stories like this on the news the last few months. And they are not full fledged American citizens; that's the problem, they came over here illegally with their parents and were allowed to enter our school systems going all the way thru and are now in college. I don't remember the exact details of how these particular college students got caught or found out (however you want to phrase it), but now they face deportation or did at the time of the news story. Who knows, maybe some allowance has been made for them to stay and become "legal". I feel for those kids, they've known only America and feel they are American. For all intents and purposes they are; they just don't have the legal documentation to lawfully prove it and make it so.



JB, I don't have all the answers either, but allowing "anchor-babies" is not the answer in my opinion. Any child born in a foreign country whether their parents are there legally or illegally should be considered the same nationality as the parents and a citizen of the country where the parents are from (where they make their permanent "legal" home). That law in the Constitution that Flo quoted is being used as a "reward" by people who have illegally entered our country.

I'll use an analogy in the form of what's currently going on in the Gulf. If BP were able to plug up every hole on that pipe but leaves one hole unplugged, oil is still going to be leaking from that pipe. If we don't get rid of all these loopholes in our immigration and citizenship laws including anchor-babies, some one or some group is going to find a way to get through that hole and we're going to end up with the same problem.

Just like you mentioned in a previous post, it's not going to do Arizona much good to round up all these illegals if they're not going to deport them. These half-ass measures aren't going to cut it if we're serious about stopping illegal immigration and doing something about all the illegals already here.

Hang on a sec...I think we are getting mixed up here. :laugh:

We are talking about kids who are BORN HERE, not kids who are born in other countries and then come here. People who are born here are automatically granted citizenship, and that is what I am talking about. If a kid comes here illegally with his parents and goes to school and then is facing deportation later in life when he is not a LEGAL citizen, then tough cookies.

The term "anchor-babies" refers to children of illegal immigrants who are born in America, and then are used to petition to legally bring their families into America later in life. That is a problem that can be quelled through comprehensive immigration reform, but to try and deny citizenship of those who are born in this country would be a much fiercer and emotional debate and it's not something I would align my beliefs with.

J.B.
06-16-2010, 02:08 AM
I wonder how our current law compares to other countries?

Anybody have any idea? If an illegal immigrant in a different country has a baby are they automatically citizens?

I have a hard time believing other countries handle this like the U.S. is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

It's called Birthright Citizenship, and a lot of major countries recognize it or a modified version of it.

Bonnie
06-16-2010, 02:36 AM
Hang on a sec...I think we are getting mixed up here. :laugh:

We are talking about kids who are BORN HERE, not kids who are born in other countries and then come here. People who are born here are automatically granted citizenship, and that is what I am talking about. If a kid comes here illegally with his parents and goes to school and then is facing deportation later in life when he is not a LEGAL citizen, then tough cookies.

The term "anchor-babies" refers to children of illegal immigrants who are born in America, and then are used to petition to legally bring their families into America later in life. That is a problem that can be quelled through comprehensive immigration reform, but to try and deny citizenship of those who are born in this country would be a much fiercer and emotional debate and it's not something I would align my beliefs with.

JB, I'm not mixed up....honest. :laugh: Illegal immigration is at the root of both of those situations: 1) anchor-babies and 2) children brought into this country illegally who have been allowed to enter our schools without proper documentation showing citizenship. The illegals, as well as Mexican Americans, are kicking up a fuss (as you know :laugh:) over anything suggested or enacted to take care of illegal immigration and illegals already here.

I don't understand why you have a problem not granting citizenship to babies born by parent(s) from another country whether they are here legally or illegally. It's really no different from that student who was brought here as a child illegally and has gotten all the way to college and is now faced with possible deportation. Remember, "tough cookes"? :huh: :laugh: There is no difference (at least to me). One child is either already in the illegal mommy's tummy when she gets here or at some point thereafter, the other child has already been born and then brought over illegally. In my eyes, both children have entered the country through illegal means.

J.B.
06-16-2010, 03:00 AM
JB, I'm not mixed up....honest. :laugh: Illegal immigration is at the root of both of those situations: 1) anchor-babies and 2) children brought into this country illegally who have been allowed to enter our schools without proper documentation showing citizenship. The illegals, as well as Mexican Americans, are kicking up a fuss (as you know :laugh:) over anything suggested or enacted to take care of illegal immigration and illegals already here.

Yes, illegal immigration is the root of both of those issues, and that is why we need comprehensive immigration reform in Washington.

However, children who are born here do have the legal documentation to attend public school, because they are legal citizens.



I don't understand why you have a problem not granting citizenship to babies born by parent(s) from another country whether they are here legally or illegally. It's really no different from that student who was brought here as a child illegally and has gotten all the way to college and is now faced with possible deportation. Remember, "tough cookes"? :huh: :laugh: There is no difference (at least to me). One child is either already in the illegal mommy's tummy when she gets here or at some point thereafter, the other child is already out of the illegal mommy's tummy when she crosses over....either way, both children have entered the country through an "illegal uterus avenue"! :tongue0011:

:laugh:

My problem with it is simple.

The children who are born in other countries are citizens of that country. Children who are born here are citizens of this country by birthright, and to strip them of that would essentially leave them in limbo. None of us have a choice of our parents or where we are born. The babies are innocent in this, as are the young children who get brought over illegally by their parents.

Obviously, if a child has lived here basically their whole life and has assimilated into American life, that should be taken into account during their deportation hearing (and it almost always is unless they commit crimes), but that doesn't mean I think the law should permit these people to petition to bring a bunch of their relatives to America, there is obvious abuse going on in that sector and it needs to be addressed.

Still, the fact remains that while it may seem odd to some extent to say that it's as black and white as the state lines themselves, I believe it is. Children born here can be citizens by birthright, Children who are not need to become naturalized through the immigration process.

Bonnie
06-16-2010, 03:44 AM
Yes, illegal immigration is the root of both of those issues, and that is why we need comprehensive immigration reform in Washington.

However, children who are born here do have the legal documentation to attend public school, because they are legal citizens.




My problem with it is simple.

The children who are born in other countries are citizens of that country. Children who are born here are citizens of this country by birthright, and to strip them of that would essentially leave them in limbo. None of us have a choice of our parents or where we are born. The babies are innocent in this, as are the young children who get brought over illegally by their parents.

Obviously, if a child has lived here basically their whole life and has assimilated into American life, that should be taken into account during their deportation hearing (and it almost always is unless they commit crimes), but that doesn't mean I think the law should permit these people to petition to bring a bunch of their relatives to America, there is obvious abuse going on in that sector and it needs to be addressed.

Still, the fact remains that while it may seem odd to some extent to say that it's as black and white as the state lines themselves, I believe it is. Children born here can be citizens by birthright, Children who are not need to become naturalized through the immigration process.

I agree the children are the innocents in this. If I'm understanding you, you think the children whether born here or brought here should get to stay(?). So, we've come full circle back to how these kids got here. These children come with parents, etc..., what should be done with them?

I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round. :laugh:

J.B.
06-16-2010, 04:17 AM
I agree the children are the innocents in this. If I'm understanding you, you think the children whether born here or brought here should get to stay(?). So, we've come full circle back to how these kids got here. These children come with parents, etc..., what should be done with them?

I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round. :laugh:

I know it's a mouthful, and it is a bit of a mess, but this whole situation is a mess :laugh:

What I am saying is if you are born here, I think you are a citizen.

If you are brought here, you must go through the immigration process and have a hearing before a judge. Each case is different, and I do believe it is only fair to look at them as such.

If the parents are going to be deported, and the children are NOT citizens of the United States, then they are to be deported right along with their parents back to whatever country they are from.

However, if the child IS a citizen of America and was born here, and the parents are unable provide proof a safe and suitable environment for the child upon returning to their homeland, or they are unable to ensure the child will be able to live in that country legally, then the child should be placed with DCFS or a LEGAL relative who is deemed suitable.

I know that's not gonna be the most popular opinion with a lot of people on this issue, but it is what I think and I stand by it. I feel that God blessed me to be born in America, and I consider myself lucky for that. I completely agree with stricter enforcement of laws against illegal immigration and comprehensive reform to address all the abuses in the system, and that is where the problem starts. If we could just tackle that main issue, then all of the other side issues would go right along with it.

Chuck
06-16-2010, 04:20 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

It's called Birthright Citizenship, and a lot of major countries recognize it or a modified version of it.

Thought this bit from the article you referenced was worth noting.....

Jus soli is common in developed countries that wish to increase their own citizenry, as well as in countries of the Western Hemisphere who sought to increase their populations through settlement.[citation needed] It is also recognized in some developing countries.

I don't think that really applies to us............. :wink:

rockdawg21
06-16-2010, 04:21 AM
Where's Buzzard when we need an argument? :laugh:

Bonnie
06-16-2010, 04:48 AM
I know it's a mouthful, and it is a bit of a mess, but this whole situation is a mess :laugh:

What I am saying is if you are born here, I think you are a citizen.

If you are brought here, you must go through the immigration process and have a hearing before a judge. Each case is different, and I do believe it is only fair to look at them as such.

If the parents are going to be deported, and the children are NOT citizens of the United States, then they are to be deported right along with their parents back to whatever country they are from.

However, if the child IS a citizen of America and was born here, and the parents are unable provide proof a safe and suitable environment for the child upon returning to their homeland, or they are unable to ensure the child will be able to live in that country legally, then the child should be placed with DCFS or a LEGAL relative who is deemed suitable.

I know that's not gonna be the most popular opinion with a lot of people on this issue, but it is what I think and I stand by it. I feel that God blessed me to be born in America, and I consider myself lucky for that. I completely agree with stricter enforcement of laws against illegal immigration and comprehensive reform to address all the abuses in the system, and that is where the problem starts. If we could just tackle that main issue, then all of the other side issues would go right along with it.

You're right, it is a mess. :laugh: And I agree with the rest of what you said too. I tell you what, I do respect those in Arizona who are at least trying to do something about the problem in their state. It may not be a perfect plan, but at least they're trying.... :cool:

J.B.
06-16-2010, 04:49 AM
Thought this bit from the article you referenced was worth noting.....



I don't think that really applies to us............. :wink:

It's a valid point, the general public is not at all interested in seeing the population increase, but at the same time I would say that I believe that overpopulation is a myth.

I would also point out these two parts from the article specifically related to America....

On the other hand, in places like the United States, jus soli is credited with the nation's ability to integrate various nationalities and with much less social strife and difficulties than other countries [citation needed]. Although jus soli was formally stated in the Fourteenth Amendment, judicial authorities recognize that the philosophy was integral at the conception of the country's constitution.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part, "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." This makes citizens of all persons born in the United States, provided they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of their birth - that is, they are not the children of foreign diplomats and like persons who, having diplomatic immunity, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction while they are in the country for diplomatic purposes.

At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified (1868), it excluded Aboriginal Americans because they were not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and, thus, were not American citizens. Congress declared it policy to extend citizenship to all Aboriginal peoples in 1924, which was realized in 1968 with the Indian Civil Rights Act.[9]

This interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States was formally established in 1898 by a 6-2 decision the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In that case, the Court found the petitioner had been born in the United States and therefore became a U.S. citizen. This could not be revoked because his parents were not American citizens at the time of his birth, or because they made several trips to China after it.[10]

Any remaining doubts about the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment were resolved by the Supreme Court's decision in Plyler v. Doe, which held that “the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter.”

Nevertheless, some lawmakers and conservative activists have proposed abolishing jus soli,[2][11] but these efforts have so far failed.

Bonnie
06-16-2010, 04:50 AM
Where's Buzzard when we need an argument? :laugh:

I think he said he was trying out for "Annie"....

"Tomorrow, tomorrow....." :laugh:

J.B.
06-16-2010, 04:56 AM
Where's Buzzard when we need an argument? :laugh:

He's probably out protesting about it on somebody's lawn.

VCURamFan
06-16-2010, 04:21 PM
He's probably out protesting about it on somebody's lawn.
He's wearing flak jacket in case you decide to run over & shoot him in the back like a coward while he peacefully walks away after traumatizing your child.

NateR
06-16-2010, 05:34 PM
Yes, illegal immigration is the root of both of those issues, and that is why we need comprehensive immigration reform in Washington.

However, children who are born here do have the legal documentation to attend public school, because they are legal citizens.




My problem with it is simple.

The children who are born in other countries are citizens of that country. Children who are born here are citizens of this country by birthright, and to strip them of that would essentially leave them in limbo. None of us have a choice of our parents or where we are born. The babies are innocent in this, as are the young children who get brought over illegally by their parents.

Obviously, if a child has lived here basically their whole life and has assimilated into American life, that should be taken into account during their deportation hearing (and it almost always is unless they commit crimes), but that doesn't mean I think the law should permit these people to petition to bring a bunch of their relatives to America, there is obvious abuse going on in that sector and it needs to be addressed.

Still, the fact remains that while it may seem odd to some extent to say that it's as black and white as the state lines themselves, I believe it is. Children born here can be citizens by birthright, Children who are not need to become naturalized through the immigration process.

They shouldn't have to change the law at all. If a child is born on US soil to a non-US citizen, who is in this country LEGALLY, then the law should remain as it is. However, if the mother is in this country ILLEGALLY, then her child should not automatically receive US citizenship upon birth.

You just have to make the stipulation that the parents of the child must be in this country legally, even if it's just a travel visa, for citizenship to be bestowed upon their child.

However, in most cases, if the parents are citizens of one country and the child is born in another country, then isn't the child awarded dual-citizenship? I know that's how it is for my oldest nephew. He was born in a German hospital while my brother was stationed in Germany. So he is a US and German citizen. So it's not like a child of Mexican citizens born in the US will be without a country if we deport the whole family, they will still be Mexican citizens.

VCURamFan
06-16-2010, 06:10 PM
They shouldn't have to change the law at all. If a child is born on US soil to a non-US citizen, who is in this country LEGALLY, then the law should remain as it is. However, if the mother is in this country ILLEGALLY, then her child should not automatically receive US citizenship upon birth.

You just have to make the stipulation that the parents of the child must be in this country legally, even if it's just a travel visa, for citizenship to be bestowed upon their child.

However, in most cases, if the parents are citizens of one country and the child is born in another country, then isn't the child awarded dual-citizenship? I know that's how it is for my oldest nephew. He was born in a German hospital while my brother was stationed in Germany. So he is a US and German citizen. So it's not like a child of Mexican citizens born in the US will be without a country if we deport the whole family, they will still be Mexican citizens.
Not anymore. The US stopped recognizing dual citizenship just recently, I believe.

J.B.
06-16-2010, 06:41 PM
However, in most cases, if the parents are citizens of one country and the child is born in another country, then isn't the child awarded dual-citizenship? I know that's how it is for my oldest nephew. He was born in a German hospital while my brother was stationed in Germany. So he is a US and German citizen. So it's not like a child of Mexican citizens born in the US will be without a country if we deport the whole family, they will still be Mexican citizens.

I honestly am not sure it works that way for all countries in all cases, but I think there is some sort of stipulation that covers military and government workers who are stationed overseas. However, I do know from reading that Germany only recently changed it's laws in the year 2000 to observe a modified version of "birthright citizenship", before that they were "right of blood" nation (meaning you had to have a direct bloodline in that country to be a citizen).

NateR
06-16-2010, 06:43 PM
Well, I guess if Mexico refused to recognize babies born in the US, to illegal Mexican immigrants, as Mexican citizens; then we'd have a problem. Does anyone know what the Mexican government's stance on this is?

J.B.
06-16-2010, 06:45 PM
He's wearing flak jacket in case you decide to run over & shoot him in the back like a coward while he peacefully walks away after traumatizing your child.

:laugh:

He should try one of those Kevlar suits.

rearnakedchoke
06-16-2010, 06:50 PM
Well, I guess if Mexico refused to recognize babies born in the US, to illegal Mexican immigrants, as Mexican citizens; then we'd have a problem. Does anyone know what the Mexican government's stance on this is?

According to the Constitution of Mexico, anyone born within the borders of the Mexican territory automatically achieves citizenship. It doesn't matter if the person is of Mexican descent or some other nation, citizenship is bestowed upon the individual because of the place of birth. This means that many people with Mexican citizenship are dual citizens with other countries.

Anyone born outside of Mexico to someone who is either a Mexican by birth or through the process of naturalization is also a Mexican citizen. This process extends to anyone who is born on an aircraft or sea vessel as well, regardless of ancestry. As long as the plane or ship is registered as a Mexican business or property, the person born on it will automatically become a citizen.

Miss Foxy
06-16-2010, 06:57 PM
According to the Constitution of Mexico, anyone born within the borders of the Mexican territory automatically achieves citizenship. It doesn't matter if the person is of Mexican descent or some other nation, citizenship is bestowed upon the individual because of the place of birth. This means that many people with Mexican citizenship are dual citizens with other countries.

Anyone born outside of Mexico to someone who is either a Mexican by birth or through the process of naturalization is also a Mexican citizen. This process extends to anyone who is born on an aircraft or sea vessel as well, regardless of ancestry. As long as the plane or ship is registered as a Mexican business or property, the person born on it will automatically become a citizen.

So my kids could be considered dual citizens? Their dad was born in Mexico..Weird..

J.B.
06-16-2010, 07:02 PM
Well, I guess if Mexico refused to recognize babies born in the US, to illegal Mexican immigrants, as Mexican citizens; then we'd have a problem. Does anyone know what the Mexican government's stance on this is?

I found it, and YES they would be considered Mexican Citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_nationality_law

However, at the same time, Mexico also recognizes birthright citizenship, as we do here in America.

Also, if the child is considered of another nationality (say one of the parents is an American), then this stipulation applies...

The Mexican nationality law acknowledges that a Mexican by birth can also possess another nationality. If that is the case, however, such an individual must always enter and leave the country as a Mexican (i.e. by presenting a Mexican proof of citizenship). The law also established that, regardless of possession of another nationality an individual will always be considered a Mexican national—that is, she or he cannot claim protection from a foreign country in judicial cases—if:[2]

* she or he participates in an entity's or company's capital if these are constituted according to the Mexican law; if
* she or he gives credits to such entities; and if
* she or he possesses property in Mexican territory

All Mexican nationals by birth that possess another nationality cannot be elected for or work in public office only in those cases that the law clearly establishes that they must not acquire another nationality. If in such a case, and if a Mexican national by birth is also considered a national by another country directly or indirectly, she or he can request a Certificate of Nationality from the government, whereby she or he must renounce her or his other nationality.

J.B.
06-16-2010, 07:06 PM
So my kids could be considered dual citizens? Their dad was born in Mexico..Weird..

Technically, yes

However, they would not be full Mexican Nationals if they are also considered to be of another nationality.

See my post above this one, lol

flo
06-17-2010, 02:36 AM
So my kids could be considered dual citizens? Their dad was born in Mexico..Weird..
Yes, JB is right. My husband's dad was born in Ireland which automatically makes him an Irish citizen (to get an Irish passport, however, they need lots and lots of documents and $$, we're in that process now, still worth it). So it would probably be advantageous for your kids too, Melissa.

Bonnie
06-17-2010, 07:06 AM
I found this article when I was reading up on "birthright citizenship" after watching Greta tonight talking to the Governor of Arizona and an Arizona senator/rep who has introduced some of this legislation that some find controversial. This article makes reference to some of the things he mentioned:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html

An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship
By George F. Will
Sunday, March 28, 2010

A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.

To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "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." From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.

A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."

Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.

If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is derived: "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:

"A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."

Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois was, Graglia writes, one of two "principal authors of the citizenship clauses in 1866 act and the 14th Amendment." He said that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its "complete" jurisdiction, meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else." Hence children whose Indian parents had tribal allegiances were excluded from birthright citizenship.

Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his "own will without the action or assent of the United States." And "no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." Graglia says this decision "seemed to establish" that U.S. citizenship is "a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States." So: "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal."

Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to those whose presence here is "not only without the government's consent but in violation of its law."

"Two-thirds....more than half....10 percent".....I think those numbers are staggering.

Miss Foxy
06-17-2010, 06:00 PM
Yes, JB is right. My husband's dad was born in Ireland which automatically makes him an Irish citizen (to get an Irish passport, however, they need lots and lots of documents and $$, we're in that process now, still worth it). So it would probably be advantageous for your kids too, Melissa.

I know right!! I lost property, because I am an American citizen so I might as well try to reap whatever benefits my children are entitled in Meh heeco.. lol.. Mexico..I knew marrying a non-citizen would bite me in the *ss later.. My parents warned me too!!:unsure-1:

Buzzard
06-19-2010, 01:50 PM
Where's Buzzard when we need an argument? :laugh:

I am in agreement with JB on this issue. No need to add my $.02 as he has stated his argument in fine form.

He's wearing flak jacket in case you decide to run over & shoot him in the back like a coward while he peacefully walks away after traumatizing your child.

Not even close. If you would have paid attention and learned how to comprehend what you read, you would have known that I never said that I agreed with the tactics taken. I expect that from you though, so it's no surprise.

J.B.
06-20-2010, 12:43 AM
I am in agreement with JB on this issue. No need to add my $.02 as he has stated his argument in fine form.


Does this mean I'm not on the list anymore? :laugh:

No rush, you can just tell me tomorrow. :rolleyes:

Buzzard
06-20-2010, 04:43 AM
Does this mean I'm not on the list anymore? :laugh:

No rush, you can just tell me tomorrow. :rolleyes:

I don't think you were on the list itfp.

J.B.
06-20-2010, 08:50 AM
I don't think you were on the list itfp.

Nope, check your list again...cuz only a raging homosexual would have left me off....:rolleyes:

Tyburn
06-20-2010, 02:06 PM
Well...I think you are where your born. So I would say that the Children were Born American...but Legally, they are not American unless they are naturalized. Therefore, I wouldnt claim they were citizens just because they were born there, and there is no way that the parents become citizens just because they have children there.

I think all should be deported...BUT I would then allow the children to apply for citizenship and immigration like everyone else...whereas, I would keep lists of the names of illegal immigrants and dissallow them from ever, ever being citizens...I would possibly also dissallow them visa to visit. They have to learn, that its not worth trying to illegally enter the country...if they want in, they go through the proper channels...or they take their chances...a chance that means if they fail they never set foot on US Soil ever again...even if the rest of their family who does things properly can. :)