Born in America, but NOT guaranteed citizenship?

Liberal for not wanting to screw around with the Constitution? That could come back to haunt us. So, if that's your definition of liberal, then I guess I am.
Click to expand...

Hello, this is about the 14th Amendment. This was decades after the first 10 and the COTUS were written. The Amendment in question was already "screwing around with the Constitution."

Why was the Amendment written? Simple, to ensure that those former slaves born here were citizens. There were problems after the slaves were freed establishing their classification as citizens. The 14th Amendment was one of the ways used to resolve this. It was NOT meant to grant citizenship to any child whose parent illegally entered the nation. Unfortunately that is exactly what it does because such a problem was never envisioned.

Do you agree with the repeal of Prohibition? That was screwing around with the COTUS. The purpose of Amendments are to address issues which may arise that the authors of the COTUS never foresaw. This is one of them and we need to do something before it is too late (if it is not already.)
 
We aren't taking kids. We're giving parents options. The child is a citizen, the parents are not. You can take the child home, and they can return when they're old enough to be independent. You can leave the child with a family in this country of your choosing (ideally it would be members of your own extended family). Or you can put the child into the foster/adoption system...never to be seen by you again. Obviously the last is not an option I'd choose, and I'd hope they wouldn't either...but it should be an option. The child is a citizen, and thus the parents should have every option available to have the child benefit from that citizenship.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what should be done. What is more, a parent who has entered the nation illegally already should NOT be granted a VISA to return should the child be left here in another's care. They are already criminals and should not benefit from their behavior. Give the parents every incentive to take their children with them.
 
To make sure that [the Constitution] is only changed when a vast majority of the country agrees, the process for changing the process was made very difficult.
Click to expand...
Unless you can persuade five members of the Supreme Court to disregard the well-documented and clear intent of the authors of the provision of the Constitution in question, and then it's not very difficult at all by comparison, regardless of how the vast majority of the country feels about it one way or the other.

(Maybe this is a gun-related thread after all...)
 
Last edited:
Unless you can persuade five members of the Supreme Court to disregard the well-documented and clear intent of the authors of the provision of the Constitution in question, and then it's not very difficult at all by comparison, regardless of how the vast majority of the country feels about it one way or the other.
Click to expand...

How very, very, sadly, true.
 
Well, one could argue that crossing into another country and leaving the previous one behind removes whatever allegiance they have to any other country.
Click to expand...
Sure, if you want to be laughed out of court.

Obviously, when I traveled to Russia, I didn't give up US citizenship by doing so, and still "owed allegiance" to the United States as a citizen thereof, and was entitled to assistance and protection of the Embassy and consular offices of the US.

If people can take the racism chip off their shoulder for just a few moments, maybe they can see the proverbial forest here.

We went through a great deal of effort, expense, and hardship in order to adopt our son from Russia and secure his US citizenship.

The idea that a woman who resides in the United States for all of four hours, has no affinity or concern for the ideals that this nation represents - who might even hate them to the depths of her soul - and who has no intention of remaining in the United States at all, can give birth to a US citizen whose only connection to our nation 18 years later might be the four hours he spent in a US hospital being born - a US citizen who can legally cast a vote from that point on to influence a country which he doesn't even remember - is frankly offensive to me and anyone else of any nationality who has had to go through lawful process to secure US citizenship, and cheapens citizenship to the point of meaninglessness.

I don't care if the child is a dirt-poor Mexican, billionaire Saudi royalty, Greek, British, Canadian, or lily-white Scandinavian - it rankles regardless of race, and I suspect that those who keep dragging the issue back to race are simply engaging in fallacy (composition, genetic, guilt by association, take your pick), either consciously or because of whatever chips they might have on their shoulders.
 
Hey Juan Carlos

Juan Carlos,

Gracias por su opinion, siento que no entendi su post. Por favor, Por favor, perdoname.

Estoy atonizada de sus abilidades mentales. No seas un bebe, te estoy jugando.

Ciao!
 
OK, now that I've gotten a broad view of what people think of the 14th Amendment from thoughts of original intent to what should be done to control illegal immigration, I think I'm ready to get my point across:

HKuser started the nail with a tack hammer, mvpel finished driving it with a maul: The nail is the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

My initial opinion was the child being born on US soil doesn't necessarily mean you become a citizen.

To put it into lamens' terms: If I want to buy a car, I would be approved for the dollar amount to get a loan subject to credit approval. What I was trying to find out is what the true interpretation of that phrase. It just doesn't seem right to ignore it and automatically give a baby citizenship because its mother jumped the fence for "technicality" purposes.

lemme guess where this thread is headed...
Click to expand...

Guess away, by all means. It would be best to post your thoughts rather than instigating a circumstance that hasn't been hashed to pieces at the moment...

it going to be another one faulting the liberals for believing the Constitution grants citizenship to the illegal kinds born in the country.
Click to expand...

No, I'm asking a question about the Constitution in earnest to get some facts straight before I make a formed opinion. Liberals aren't the only "group" of people that are to blame. If blame is to be pointed, it's the citizens that vote for the very elected officials that continue to allow illegal immigration to pour through our borders. Worse yet, citizens that RE-ELECT those public officials. And, to be honest, the guilty ones are to be blamed from the left to the right...

Anchor babies are the fault of administration, not the law.
Click to expand...

I can see your point, but I think the fault lies in the person actually breaking the law primarily.

Let's not forget that between 20 and 40% of the illegal aliens in this country come from Canada, not Mexico. So does our bigotry extend to our neighbors to the north as well our neighbors to the south?
Click to expand...

First it isn't bigotry to not want illegal immigration happening on America's soil. Second, bad behavior does NOT justify other bad behavior. So, YES it does extend to ILLEGAL aliens from Canada, Russia, Germany, Laos......

The babies aren't illegal immigrants...the mothers are. The babies meet the same requirement that I met to become a citizen; they were dragged kicking and screaming into the world above US soil.
Click to expand...

And here's a valid point that argues against my case. And, here's a secondary argument to the subject is if the mother is illegal and the baby is legal, does the baby have the right to remain in the US under the care of its mother?

What if the baby is immediately taken back to Mexico and lived there under dual citizenship until 35 years old? Then he/she moves to America and stumps for president in a few years. The case is very highly unlikely, but my point is that it could be a very messy ordeal in some peoples eyes if this did happen.

My thoughts after considering what I think the COTUS is interpreted and what the Framers' intent was still holds in line what Musketeer states. Mvpel has quite the case in point as well.

For the record: I welcome ANYBODY that wants to come to our country and become a citizen here. The caveat is that that person HAS to go through the LEGAL means necessary that our country put in place.
 
And here's a valid point that argues against my case. And, here's a secondary argument to the subject is if the mother is illegal and the baby is legal, does the baby have the right to remain in the US under the care of its mother?
Click to expand...

I think my position is clear that they absolutely do not. They have the right to their citizenship, and they have the right to remain, and the mother has neither. How that issue is dealt with is up to her...her remaining here is not an option.

What if the baby is immediately taken back to Mexico and lived there under dual citizenship until 35 years old? Then he/she moves to America and stumps for president in a few years. The case is very highly unlikely, but my point is that it could be a very messy ordeal in some peoples eyes if this did happen.
Click to expand...

I don't much care about those people's opinion I suppose. Plus, I doubt somebody who had lived in Mexico their entire lives would have much of a shot at winning the Presidency anyway.

Juan Carlos,

Gracias por su opinion, siento que no entendi su post. Por favor, Por favor, perdoname.

Estoy atonizada de sus abilidades mentales. No seas un bebe, te estoy jugando.

Ciao!
Click to expand...

Huh?

(No hablo Espanol.)
 
I agree! As long as they want to assimilate and become part of America and not set up some stupid sub culture.

You Are Or Your Not!

If I go to New Brunswick, I don't have to speak German.

If I go to Any place in America I can speak english and get along.

Here they expect you to speak Spanish and if you don't to hell with you.

Most good jobs require Bi Lingual.

Are the people along the Canadian border required to learn French?

If I remember Right, The Constitution Was Written in English!

By the way! I Am learning Spanish!
 
I said:

Thanks for your post (opinion). I am so sorry I misread it. Please, please forgive me.

I am astounded by your intellectual acumen. Don't be a baby, I am just teasing you.:D

Not bad for a fat gringo eh?:cool:

You make some very valid points. I just hate to see families separated, but it is indeed, a horrible, wretched mess.
 
You make some very valid points. I just hate to see families separated, but it is indeed, a horrible, wretched mess.
Click to expand...

Agreed. As much as I hate seeing families separated, I hate seeing people rewarded for breaking the law more.

At the same time, I agree with simple citizenship by birth (or by having citizens as parents, for those born abroad). I think it's the simplest and most straightforward system, and I can think of several special cases that other proposed systems would unnecessarily complicate.

Personally I think we can find a better way to address the "anchor baby" phenomenon without doing away with it.
 
Obviously, when I traveled to Russia, I didn't give up US citizenship by doing so, and still "owed allegiance" to the United States as a citizen thereof, and was entitled to assistance and protection of the Embassy and consular offices of the US.
Click to expand...
Yeah but did you move there with the intent to live there, work there and become a Russian?

I'm not saying it's a valid argument, just that an abstract concept of "owing allegiance" to a country doesn't seem strong enough to bar a child from citizenship.
 
It happens thousands of times every year and MaMa heads back to Mexico and never pays the hospital bill. Or she (they- Mom & Dad) send all their money back 'home' and dont have enough to pay the bill. Taxpayers are happy to pick up the tab from Nancy-et al and soon the hosp is out of business. Many in CA have closed in the last 10 yrs.
 
What if the baby is immediately taken back to Mexico and lived there under dual citizenship until 35 years old? Then he/she moves to America and stumps for president in a few years. The case is very highly unlikely, but my point is that it could be a very messy ordeal in some peoples eyes if this did happen.
Click to expand...
Well he'd have to wait 'til he was 49 to make the run at which point I don't see the problem. :p Although I highly doubt it would be a messy ordeal for more than a couple days...it'd probably last about as long as Fred Thompson's candidacy only without the entertainment factor.
 
Lets see, he was born in San Diego so he should have a California birth certificate. As I understand it if he has a birth certificate issued by any state he is a citizen of the U.S.. He may also have what is known as dual citizenship with his parents being illegal. This may be a sticky one. He should see an attorney about that point.
 
The Founders, in their wisdom, left the Constitution a fluid document, with amending not considered to be "screwing around." The Founders could NEVER have contemplated the impact of our neighbor to the south and their citizens' crossing the border simply to pop out a new U.S. citizen. The Founders would never have tolerated this kind of behavior.
 
I did some work down on the border (with the Army National Guard) and got talking to some border patrol guys. they used to have some kind of "fast lane" for the preggos, but they don't anymore. lets blame that. lets blame the theory that you are breaking up families if you deport mom and baby can A) stay with uncle or whoever, or B) go back to Mexico.

The 14th was written to make sure the children of slaves were not denied citizenship. I still think it is a good amendment, we just have to enforce our laws better, so it becomes less of an issue.

Robert j, I'll have you know that I am no bigot, nor am I racist, but the mass importation of people of whom most are poor and many are criminals is not a good thing, regardless of color. When the ER, jails, home depot parking lots, and government social programs are full of Canadians I will complain about there intrusions too.
 
So, is Starship Troopers a better answer?

Should we consider using at least part of Heinlein's ideas, that service grants citizenship? And that it is not something earned simply by an accident of birth?

The idea has some appeal, but like all things, the devil is in the details. The book and the movie share certain ideas, but not by any means all. I did like the line from the movie (and I can't quote it exactly) but something like "after the disasters brought about by the social engineers, the veterans took over". Of course, one has to be very careful about things like that, otherwise one winds up with another Fuerher, and all the bad things that go with it. If the Leader is wise and good, all is well. But if the Leader is not....things don't get any worse. The King may be good, and his son as well, but his grandson?

There is a fundamental conflict between the "democratic ideals" so popular today, and the republican nature our system was intended to operate under. In the early years of our nation, only white men (which was the convention of the times) that owned a certain amount of land, or were worth a certain amount (10 pounds Sterling, at one time) could vote. The reasoning was that since government decisions generally involved matters involving land or business (government at that time not being very involved with people's personal lives) that only men with a stake in those matters should have a say in those matters. Business today still operates on that principle, only stockholders have a say in running the business.

Today, the one man, one vote ideal is prominant. Every citizen (unless barred through legal proceedings) has a vote, and all votes count the same. How and why we got here matters not, here is where we are. So what becomes of paramount importance is the information the voters have. Control of that information shapes the vote. Enter the power of the media, and the concept of the big lie. Many citizens vote on thing that concern them. Some citizens do not vote, some do not vote on things that do not concern them, some vote on things that do not concern them, as a matter of principle. And some even believe everything concerns them, and so they vote. Some vote on things they think concerns them. We have all kinds, and each has an equal vote. Gun control got it's biggest foothold at the start in major northeast cities, partly because of the mass immigration of Europeans who had no tradition of personal arms. Indeed, their traditions were the opposite generally, and so gun control was what they were used to. They didn't object much, if any, because they were used to keeping their place, and had not learned how much Liberty they actually could have in this country. Their children understood better, their children's children even more, but the laws you grow up with are what is normal, right, and proper, they are not tyranny. And most people don't miss what they never had.

Automatic citizenship to all born on US soil is the law of the land today, but will it continue to be seen as the best thing for our nation? Should it be done away with, and a merit based system for citizenship be set up? Or should we keep it as it is, only changing the options non-citizen parents of citizens are allowed? Think about the immigrants becoming citizens today, what values and traditions they are used to, what they consider right and normal, and how they can be swayed by people who shape and control the information that they see and hear. People with an agenda beyond just selling the news to make a living. And where we might go from here.

Something to think about, isn't it.
 
Musketeer said:
The purpose of Amendments are to address issues which may arise that the authors of the COTUS never foresaw. This is one of them and we need to do something before it is too late (if it is not already.)
Click to expand...

Are we not doing something about it?

Bernanke seems to be doing everything he can to ensure a long recession once the "dump liquidity into the markets" thing runs out of steam. I suppose he thinks this might actually stop the recession, but that's quite a big gamble. Notwithstanding that companies may be starting to in-source due to the weakening dollar, over the past decade we as a country have outsourced quite a lot, which has weakened our position in the global industrial marketplace.

Arguably all we need to do now is seriously damage our medical industry somehow (Obama and fully-socialized healthcare might do it, I don't know...), and start reducing social security in acknowledgment that it's fiscally untenable in the long term, and there will no longer be much incentive for illegal immigrants to illegally immigrate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top