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

I say good. Part of what makes America a great country is the idea that we treat everyone equally, regardless of the mistakes of their parents. Born on US soil, US citizen. Foreign diplomat? Let the kid have dual citizenship and choose at adulthood.
 
I said "most" because I know we have a few naturalized citizens around here.
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.
Click to expand...

Good for you. My family goes back just as far, and went through pretty much the same process...though from Ireland and Russia instead.

As far as following the laws, I won't say "crazy" but you are definitely in the minority. A vast majority of people in this country have broken the law, most several times or routinely at some point or another. Also can you guarantee me that all your relatives follow all the laws of this country religiously? I doubt it.

In case you're wondering what I'm talking about, I'm talking about everything from traffic laws, to drug laws, to tax laws, to underage drinking laws, to DUI's (which are traffic, I guess), to sodomy laws, etc.

I suppose you can declare that immigration law is "more important" than the rest...but to me since we're talking about crimes which don't have direct victims that line is pretty arbitrary, and I'm not objectively wrong in drawing it elsewhere.
 
Also can you guarantee me that all your relatives follow all the laws of this country religiously? I doubt it.

In case you're wondering what I'm talking about, I'm talking about everything from traffic laws, to drug laws, to tax laws, to underage drinking laws, to DUI's (which are traffic, I guess), to sodomy laws, etc.

I suppose you can declare that immigration law is "more important" than the rest...but to me since we're talking about crimes which don't have direct victims that line is pretty arbitrary, and I'm not objectively wrong in drawing it elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Strawman, but I can guarantee they follow them to the best of their ability. Knowingly crossing the border illegally for the purpose of giving birth so you can stay here isn't even a comparison
 
I had government and economics classes during my public education. We didn't have the internet back then. Now you don't have to wait for school you can read and learn about the Constitution online. The Fourteenth Amendment is pretty cut and dried. if you are born on U.S. soil you are an American citizen. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

There was a case, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, in the Supreme Court of the United States in which the ruling was that African Americans whether they were slaves or not could not be citizens of the United States.

The Fourteenth Amendment abolished such foolishness and defined what a citizen was.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

This is an issue that much blood was spilled in the Civil War over. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments are a legacy of that war. They sound just and worth supporting to me.

If you want to end illegal immigration you need to address it to your elected representatives in Congress and the White House. Not by trying to strip people born on US soil of their citizenship. Only one sector of our economy benefits from illegal aliens and that is the private sector. They get a free ride of our public infrastructure. If you want to get a kidney shot in that's the place to do it. make it cost restrictive to hire illegal aliens and get caught.

The other prongs of the fork are securing our border like the Israelis have and enforcing present laws. Until our representatives in Congress and the White house get beaten up and bruised by public opinion and support its not going to happen. Right now Bush is setting down with the Democratic leadership to make a "deal" on immigration legislation. We know that neither gives a damn what the people want. They are the ones you need to pick on not the kids born on American Soil.
 
Strawman, but I can guarantee they follow them to the best of their ability. Knowingly crossing the border illegally for the purpose of giving birth so you can stay here isn't even a comparison
Click to expand...

So people don't have the ability to not drink underage? Or the ability to not perform sexual acts that the government has decided to deem illegal. Or over 50% of the population has not had the ability to not smoke marijuana at some point or another? Or the ability to come to a full and complete stop at a stop sign, even when it's 3am and not a car in sight?

Or are you arguing that they didn't know what they were doing was illegal?

Yeah, right. I see this more as the standard, "my crimes aren't/weren't as bad as their crimes" argument. Which if you're talking about rapists or murderers I can get behind...here, less so.

Especially since we're talking about how we should treat the child, not the people who actually committed the crime.

I say we just get rid of the "anchor baby" aspect, by forcing the parents to go home. If they can't find somebody who is here legally to take care of the child, it can take its US citizenship back to Mexico (or wherever else) and come back at 16 or 18, when it can take care if itself. And it can be legally barred from sponsoring family members for citizenship. That's a compromise I'm willing to accept so as to minimize the punishment to the child for the parent's crime.
 
The 14th Amendment was created to give citizenship to the newley freed slaves. That problem is fixed now so it would be smart to repeal or at least modify the 14th Amendment through another Amendment. Citizenship should now be restricted to those born here to LEGAL US citizens and to those who follow the proper immigration procedures. Not the the children of people who violate the law to get here then plop out their children to gain citizenship north of the border.
 
The 14th Amendment was created to give citizenship to the newley freed slaves. That problem is fixed now so it would be smart to repeal or at least modify the 14th Amendment through another Amendment. Citizenship should now be restricted to those born here to LEGAL US citizens and to those who follow the proper immigration procedures. Not the the children of people who violate the law to get here then plop out their children to gain citizenship north of the border.
Click to expand...

Two things:

One, I appreciate that you at least recognize that an amendment would be necessary to achieve this. Same way I appreciate when anti-gun activists admit that an amendment would be necessary to impose most of the more restrictive firearms laws they want.

Two, a question. Would you be less offended at the idea of birthright citizenship if policies were enacted (like the ones I mention a couple posts up, or similar) to ensure that the parents of these children don't benefit from the citizenship of the child? Because I do agree that that's something that needs to be addressed. I just disagree with how it should be addressed.
 
How many times have we heard the argument that the Second Amendment is no longer needed to and we need to change it to reflect the modern times or even need to abolish it? Would you support that?

Why dont we improve even more upon the Fourteenth Amendment and say that only those who have performed military service are entitled to full citizenship and rights?
 
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.
Click to expand...

1 - though you have a valid point, if you have the law changed, its gonna affect the whole 5 people in the united states that did that ?

2 - you gotta learn it somewhere.

3 - I know, There are citizens here so ignorant to our country it makes you wonder what they have been doing. but thats just how they are. Everybody learned ow the govt works in grade school, junior high or high school, they just forget. just like any ailen who studies for citizenship test, after all is done, they forget. unless you like that stuff, then you remember, you see it is up to the individual to know or not. its choice, its freedom, its why they come here in the first place
 
How many times have we heard the argument that the Second Amendment is no longer needed to and we need to change it to reflect the modern times or even need to abolish it? Would you support that?
Click to expand...

I don't support the movement...but I support the fact that they are acknowledging the proper method to achieve their goals.

Especially since it's a method that's nearly impossible. ;)

(And I think amending the 14th would nearly as difficult as amending the 2nd)
 
A vast majority of people in this country have broken the law, most several times or routinely at some point or another. Also can you guarantee me that all your relatives follow all the laws of this country religiously? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
That strawman leads to the untenable conclusion that nobody needs to comply with the law.

I say we just get rid of the "anchor baby" aspect, by forcing the parents to go home. If they can't find somebody who is here legally to take care of the child, it can take its US citizenship back to Mexico (or wherever else) and come back at 16 or 18, when it can take care if itself. And it can be legally barred from sponsoring family members for citizenship. That's a compromise I'm willing to accept so as to minimize the punishment to the child for the parent's crime.
Click to expand...
This is a solution consistent with all of our existing laws.
 
That strawman leads to the untenable conclusion that nobody needs to comply with the law.
Click to expand...

Which, of course, is not my intent. More to nullify the whole, "everybody in my family obeys the law" argument. That brand of self-righteousness rings very hollow, and has no place in this argument. Especially since it's generally not even true. Even assuming it is, should it matter? I know for a fact that my "father" has broken many laws, including some of the more "important" ones. Should I be treated differently in the eyes of the law because of that? Of course not.

I mean, some people's argument seems to always boil down to, "What part of ILLEGAL don't you understand!!!1!!1!" Which is to suggest that we live in a black-and-white world of only legal and illegal, and that every discussion should boil down to nothing more than that. When in reality nearly all of us have broken the law...so at that point a discussion of exactly why immigration law is more "important" than, say, the legal drinking age seems relevant.* It certainly means that shouting "ILLEGAL" and acting as though that's some kind of conversation-ending statement is just a tad silly.

* - [EDIT: Both in discussion of enforcement (priority of enforcement and severity of punishment), and in discussing possible reform.]

This is a solution consistent with all of our existing laws.
Click to expand...

I'm aware. Hence the reason I suggested it. ;)

It's almost as though I agree illegal immigration is a problem, but simply disagree with most folks here on how that problem should be dealt with. Funny, that.
 
I am amused by what I call the "soiled diaper effect" when it comes to our laws, Constitution and immigration. the baby has soiled the diaper so we need to throw it out and get something "new and improved".

Yet when it comes to the Second Amendment we get we don't need any new laws or amendment, enforce what is on the books.

The politician love folks who want "new and improved laws"

The Good News...

We already have all the laws we need to solve illegal immigration on the books. The missing piece of the puzzle in "enforcement", which includes the $$$, personnel and the courts.

The Bad news...

politicians will be glad to pass all the new laws on immigration they think will get them votes. They just wont put teeth into the new laws. In fact they will probably weaken the old laws...lol
 
So people don't have the ability to not drink underage? Or the ability to not perform sexual acts that the government has decided to deem illegal. Or over 50% of the population has not had the ability to not smoke marijuana at some point or another? Or the ability to come to a full and complete stop at a stop sign, even when it's 3am and not a car in sight?
Click to expand...

No, I'm arguing that the scenario you contrived is without merit and impossible to prove one way or the other.


Or are you arguing that they didn't know what they were doing was illegal?
Click to expand...

What crimes have they committed? I'm not aware of any crimes they have committed, are you?

Yeah, right. I see this more as the standard, "my crimes aren't/weren't as bad as their crimes" argument. Which if you're talking about rapists or murderers I can get behind...here, less so.
Click to expand...

I see crime as crime, not gun crime, not racial violence, not domestic violence. You can not profit from illegally gotten goods. i.e. if you're here illegally anything you do or profit from has come from an illegal source.

Especially since we're talking about how we should treat the child, not the people who actually committed the crime.

I say we just get rid of the "anchor baby" aspect, by forcing the parents to go home. If they can't find somebody who is here legally to take care of the child, it can take its US citizenship back to Mexico (or wherever else) and come back at 16 or 18, when it can take care if itself. And it can be legally barred from sponsoring family members for citizenship. That's a compromise I'm willing to accept so as to minimize the punishment to the child for the parent's crime.
Click to expand...

Are you now advocating kicking U.S. citizens out of the country even though they have committed no crime? Remember, you said it was their parents crime not theirs. Which is it?:confused:
 
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.
Click to expand...

It has to cover them or else we could not prosecute them for crimes committed and they would be the same as diplomats, only punishable under their original country.
 
I say we just get rid of the "anchor baby" aspect, by forcing the parents to go home. If they can't find somebody who is here legally to take care of the child, it can take its US citizenship back to Mexico (or wherever else) and come back at 16 or 18, when it can take care if itself. And it can be legally barred from sponsoring family members for citizenship. That's a compromise I'm willing to accept so as to punishment to the child for the parent's crime.
Click to expand...
works for me!
 
Based upon the 14th amendment, we have Title 8 §1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and​
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.​
Click to expand...
Along with the stautory law, above, you must also comply with the CFR (Code of Federal Rugulations). In this instance, 8 CFR 301.

The legislative history can be found here.

P.S. Juan? I finished reading the Ron Paul thread that wasn't really about Ron Paul... Wonder how that happened? :D
 
Are you now advocating kicking U.S. citizens out of the country even though they have committed no crime? Remember, you said it was their parents crime not theirs. Which is it?
Click to expand...

Well, ideally they would be able to stay...but then you get into the fact that they can't support themselves, and would either be a drain on social service and/or fall victim to an atrocious foster care system. Least harm is done at that point, provided nobody legally here can take care of them, by sending them back with the parents (until they're older). Though I suppose if the parents wanted to put them up for adoption/into the foster care system that would be fair.

It's a matter of balancing the fact that the child is a natural born citizen, yet at the same time a baby and obviously unable to, you know, care for itself.

What crimes have they committed? I'm not aware of any crimes they have committed, are you?
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any particular crimes and any specific people have committed...yet statistics says that it's likely they have knowingly committed a crime at some point or another. Marijuana prohibition alone has made over 50% of people in this country criminals (tried it at one point or another). Going back in people's family trees, I'm guessing that alcohol prohibition did the same. Then there are the many other "common" crimes...underage drinking, trespassing, speeding, etc...basically, I think that people who've never knowingly and intentionally broken the law at some point or another are probably a pretty small minority. Going up somebody's family tree (and coming back down all the branches) it's statistically unlikely that anybody can claim their entire family falls into this category. Are you arguing with this assessment?

Note I've said "unlikely," not impossible.

You can not profit from illegally gotten goods. i.e. if you're here illegally anything you do or profit from has come from an illegal source.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the child "profiting" from illegal immigration (though citizenship), the child committed no crime. The parents did. And I've made it pretty obvious that I'm quite alright with ensuring (or attempting to) that the parents don't profit from it.

P.S. Juan? I finished reading the Ron Paul thread that wasn't really about Ron Paul... Wonder how that happened?
Click to expand...

Hey, don't look at me. I didn't bring this up, someone else did...I'm the one who figured it'd be better off if it had its own thread. ;)
 
1 - though you have a valid point, if you have the law changed, its gonna affect the whole 5 people in the united states that did that?

Whether it affects 5 people of 50 million is irrelevent, the fact is that it's fundamentally unjust: someone who happens to be born here is simply handed citizenship, they didnt have to work for it one bit, but if someone comes from another country they do have to work for it. I don't think I need to explain to you what happens when people are just given things without effort, it's amazing the level of pride I see in many immigrants I know (legal ones) about how they are a citizen, they take voting a lot more seriously as well as other things civic.

My ideal system: citizenship is only available to those who earn it, just being born here is not enough. A US National (non-citizen) would still be protected by the bill of rights and would have everything they have now but they could not vote nor hold public office.

2 - you gotta learn it somewhere

If they did learn it somewhere, or even in school, that's fine, as long as they demonstrate their knowledge and understanding via a citizenship exam everything's gravy.

3 - I know, There are citizens here so ignorant to our country it makes you wonder what they have been doing. but thats just how they are. Everybody learned ow the govt works in grade school, junior high or high school, they just forget. just like any ailen who studies for citizenship test, after all is done, they forget. unless you like that stuff, then you remember, you see it is up to the individual to know or not. its choice, its freedom, its why they come here in the first place

Maybe I have less faith than you in our public education system but I've known people in and out of high school who couldn't tell me thing 1 about the Constitution, I even knew a law student (2nd year) who didnt know any of the Articles in the Bill of Rights. Maybe they're just bad apples that I got but it seems to me that we're scraping the bottom of the barrel in the US, maybe I'm wrong but whenever I talk to people from other countries a lot of them seem a lot more knowledgeable than your average American, and I have to wonder if they're doing something different and better than we are.

The Glockler citizenship system is not a cure-all, and is not intended to be, I do think it would set us up on a solid foundation to do things better.

One idea regarding education is to adopt a modified version of the Belgian system for education. Check out this clip by John Stossell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA
 
Its the age old argument of jus soli verses jus sanguinis. France picked the latter, we picked the former.

Whether its good or not is a secondary to the fact that it IS the law. There may be ways around it such as the option I posted in the other thread, but for those that want it changed, and amendment is what you're going to need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top