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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
That strawman leads to the untenable conclusion that nobody needs to comply with the law.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.
This is a solution consistent with all of our existing laws.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.
That strawman leads to the untenable conclusion that nobody needs to comply with the law.
This is a solution consistent with all of our existing laws.
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.
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.
works for me!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.
Along with the stautory law, above, you must also comply with the CFR (Code of Federal Rugulations). In this instance, 8 CFR 301.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(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.
(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
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?
What crimes have they committed? I'm not aware of any crimes they have committed, are you?
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.
P.S. Juan? I finished reading the Ron Paul thread that wasn't really about Ron Paul... Wonder how that happened?