Birthright citizenship...good, bad, or ugly?

J

JuanCarlos

New member
Continued from the last bit of this thread on Ron Paul. Please read the pertinent posts before posting here, or face scorn and derision. Thought a new thread might prevent that one from becoming consumed with one issue.

The child != the border crosser. It's a separate human being, that at the time of its birth had broken no laws. As far as earning citizenship, it has earned it the same way most of us have earned it...it was born directly above the right piece of land.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? You actually believe "most" of us were born here by illegal aliens? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I shure do! OLOL!!!1!1

I said "most" because I know we have a few naturalized citizens around here.

I hate to burst your PC bubble, but most of us earned our U.S. citenzship by being born here by two legal U.S. citizens.
Click to expand...

So you "earned" something through the actions of another? Makes sense. :rolleyes:

Maybe I shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, since my "dad" (who plays no part in my life, hence quotes) is a convicted felon.
 
Juan, perhaps you should quote the pertinent part of the 14th amendment that specifies who a citizen is... For those that don't understand, of course.
 
Why, no problem...it was quoted, IIRC, over in the other thread. Part of the reason why I heartily recommend others read the pertinent portion of that thread or face scorn and derision. ;)

Seriously. Posts 34-75 or so, as of this writing.

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. ...
Click to expand...

From wikipedia. I heartily recommend reading further, as there is some interesting commentary regarding citizenship of illegal aliens in particular.

EDIT: Off for a while, BTW. I'll be back later to see where this goes...
 
I think its ridiculous that a baby born to women in the US illegally, who are citizens of some other country, should be automatically American citizens just because of being born here. Unless at least one parent is a US citizen, why on earth should just being born somewhere make a baby a citizen of whatever country his mother happened to be in when he was born??

For example, say an American woman was working in Russia, and she give birth to a baby there. Both parents are US citizens who are temporarily in Russia. Would that baby not be an American citizen, but rather, a Russian citizen? This makes no sense, because neither parent is Russian or has any intent of remaining in Russia. Babies should have the same citizenship as their parents, no matter where they're born.

Children of US military families are born all over the world, but they are all considered US citizens, not dual citizens. Why aren't babies born to Mexicans (for example) not Mexican citizens no matter where they're born?
 
Born on American soil equals citizen, always has.
Just because we can't secure our borders does not mean that that should change it simply means that we should have better control over who drops babies on our soil.


I did not earn the right to be an American citizen through birth, but by grace of God.
My ancestors earned the right for their descendants to be granted that grace.
 
Children of US military families are born all over the world, but they are all considered US citizens, not dual citizens. Why aren't babies born to Mexicans (for example) not Mexican citizens no matter where they're born?
Click to expand...


Sorry, but not true. If a child is born abroad you have to get a "born abroad" certificate from the state dept. I forget the form number, you then have to use the certificate to prove that your child was born from U.S. citizens. I have a few friends who were stationed in Portugal, both parents were born U.S. citizens, their son is a citizen of Portugal. They have never filed the paperwork to make him a U.S. citizen. They figured they would let him make the choice as long as he does it before he turns 18 it's fairly easy, after 18 it gets more complicated.


BTW: Also don't agree with illegals children being used to keep illegals in the country.
 
The entire illegal immigration issue has become more prominent for several reasons: national security and the fear that among the flood of illegals are those who mean this nation harm; the high cost to US taxpayers for services to non-citizens, including health care, schooling, not to mention the high number of illegals that are being housed in our prisons at high cost to us; and maybe most importantly, that the illegals coming from Mexico are not fully assimilating into American culture. Past immigrants, legal and illegal, wanted desperately to become Americans. They learned the language, values and cultural aspects of America, and usually by the very next generation were fully assimilated. The illegals flooding our southern border come here primarily to work, but not to become Americans. They retain their primary loyalty and cultural connection to Mexico or other Central American country, creating "little Mexicos" in our midst. Until recently the question of birth creating citizenship was not a problem for most AMericans, since the baby usually grew up to be an English speaking fully assimilated American. The babies now being questioned may have been born on US soil, but in all real ways are Mexicans.
 
Birthright citizenship is nonsense, people born here should have to go through the process and earn it just like foreigners do. Maybe if Americans had to go through that process they'd learn a thing or two about our system of govt and we'd have a more informed electorate.
 
Born on American soil equals citizen, always has.
Click to expand...

No, the 14th amendment was passed in 1868.

miboso posted this in the other thread:

From:http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/...itizenship.htm

"The jurisdiction requirement was added to the original draft of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate after a lengthy and acrimonious debate. In fact, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. Sen. Howard noted that the jurisdiction requirement is "simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already." Sen. Howard said that "this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.""

"The Supreme Court, however, has never decided the issue. The closest it has come is a case involving the U.S.-born child of lawful permanent residents in which, of course, it held the child to be a U.S. citizen. In the absence of a ruling by the Supreme Court, it will remain up to Congress to clarify the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment or to accept the status quo."
Click to expand...

"...persons born in the United States who are foreigners..."

If born here = citizen, why were the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" added to the amendment at all? Just the department of redundancy department at work again? ;)
 
If born here = citizen, why were the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" added to the amendment at all? Just the department of redundancy department at work again
Click to expand...

To exclude persons not subject to the jurisdiction of the US...such as diplomats, occupying foreign armies, etc.

Also, regarding Supreme Court rulings...my knowledge is limited, but apparently there is a ruling stating that illegal aliens are considered to be under the jurisdiction of the US and the states in which they reside. The ruling wasn't addressing children born of illegal immigrants specifically, but it seems this issue would be covered.
 
I'm not sure where foreign armies came in, but once again, here is what was said in the debate by the people who wrote and voted on it:

"this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Click to expand...

It doesn't look to me like he is excluding an occupying foreign army (which would be kind of undefined in the war on terror anyway, but that's another thread). It looks to me like he is excluding "foreigners, aliens" with no regard to military status.
 
Maybe if Americans had to go through that process they'd learn a thing or two about our system of govt and we'd have a more informed electorate.
Click to expand...
Last I checked, there were 10 years of compulsory education prior to native citizens being able to vote. Rather than adding prerequisites to suffrage, how about fixing the educational system so that it imparts some knowledge of civics and politics?
 
I'm not sure where foreign armies came in, but once again, here is what was said in the debate by the people who wrote and voted on it...
Click to expand...

I guess it would have been a good idea to get such language into the amendment, then...because as written and passed it covers people he meant to exclude.

Oops!

It doesn't look to me like he is excluding an occupying foreign army (which would be kind of undefined in the war on terror anyway, but that's another thread). It looks to me like he is excluding "foreigners, aliens" with no regard to military status.
Click to expand...

The reason occupying foreign army has been mentioned is because it's one of the few groups of people who could theoretically be in the US who would not necessarily be subject to US jurisdiction. Tourists, resident aliens, and illegal aliens are.
 
Yeah, I shure do! OLOL!!!1!1

I said "most" because I know we have a few naturalized citizens around here.
Click to expand...

Well, my great-great-grandfather (and grandmother) came over in 1846 and became a citizen in 1851. He went through that whole laborious legal process of renouncing his loyalty to the King of Wurttemberg and declaring himself a citizen of the United States.

All other parts of the family tree also legally went through the process.

I (and all of those branches of that tree) must be some crazy minority who think following the laws of this country is something important.

Maybe I shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, since my "dad" (who plays no part in my life, hence quotes) is a convicted felon.
Click to expand...

You're a citizen (I'm assuming) of the United States - you are granted that protection under the 2nd Ammendment. That argument doesnt really follow (although understood as sarcastic).

By the way, I dont think I read ALL of the previous thread, so I'm prepared for scorn and derision :)
 
The 14th Amendment was for the children of slaves.
That law wasn't meant to allow foreigners to pump out anchor babies so as to avoid deportation. Context...

I could take the 2nd out of context. By doing so it would be validating the liberal belief that only the National guard is supposed to have the right to bear arms. However if kept in context, we arrive at our generally held conception of the amendment.
 
Last I checked, there were 10 years of compulsory education prior to native citizens being able to vote. Rather than adding prerequisites to suffrage, how about fixing the educational system so that it imparts some knowledge of civics and politics?

1 - You didnt address my point of legalized discrimination based on the fact that someone born here who was taken to a different country for 30yrs can come back and vote with no problem but someone who was born elsewhere and then lived here for 30yrs is not a citizen and has to go through the process of having to earn citizenship. No, I think everyone should have to earn it just the same.

2 -Sitting in a classroom and having understanding of how our govt/legal system works are 2 different things.

3 - Just because I advocate equal citizenship requirements for all people doesnt mean that I don't advocate overhailing our school system nor do equal citizenship requirements in any way prevent or hinder the effort to reform the schooling system.
 
GeorgeF said:
By the way, I don't think I read ALL of the previous thread, so I'm prepared for scorn and derision.
Click to expand...
Don't worry George. I didn't read any of the Ron Paul thread. He just doesn't interest me as a potential presidential candidate. Juan rightfully derided me....

Folks, like it or not, generally babies born of aliens are US citizens. Don't like it? Get another amendment passed to the Constitution.
 
The reason occupying foreign army has been mentioned is because it's one of the few groups of people who could theoretically be in the US who would not necessarily be subject to US jurisdiction. Tourists, resident aliens, and illegal aliens are.
Click to expand...

If I saw occupying foreign troops out on the street, I would also think they were illegal aliens. People are saying the illegal aliens are under our jurisdiction because our government can lock them up, but we can lock up invading troops as well, and we shoot at them too!
 
No, the 14th amendment was passed in 1868
Click to expand...
Yes, the origin of birthright citizenship goes back to 1790 and the first immigration laws the 14th merely included blacks

Don't like it? Get another amendment passed to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Or elect people who will control the borders
but we can lock up invading troops as well, and we shoot at them too!
Click to expand...
But we don't have to give them due process before we do and we will generally not have to stand trial

Invading armies are not subject to the laws of the US they are subject to the rules of war

Illegal aliens are not invading forces except in the most rhetorical sense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top