Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25

Thread: Constitutional US Birthright Citizenship being challenged

  1. #16
    Elite Member MontanaMama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Evading P6 & P7
    Posts
    14,157

    Default

    ^^While the child born here is a US citizen, the parents who chose to violate the law and enter a country illegally have no right to be here. Is it better to deport the parents leaving the child born here a ward of the state?

    The fundamental issue to any debate about immigration is the distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration. Any discussion begins and ends with that, in my opinion.
    If i hear one more personal attack, i will type while drunk, then you can cry! - Bugdoll
    (716): I'd call her a cunt, but she doesn't seem to have the depth or warmth
    Quote Originally Posted by shedevilang View Post
    (Replying to MontanaMama) This is some of the smartest shit I ever read

  2. #17
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita View Post
    I agree. There is no need to change it.

    I do not think this is so much of a problem that it should require an amendment to the Constitution. This has been a part of America since the beginning, why change it now? It is just a thinly veiled attempt to be racist, basically IMO.


    This whole 'changing the constitution is simply about racism-as this whole immigration thing has always been.

    JMHO.
    The very fact that it was an amendment to the Constitution, and occurred after the Civil War means that this clause/interpretation has not been part of America since the beginning. Moreover, the clause's original author also said that this clause did not apply to "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

    The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on what the clause means for U.S.-born children of people who have immigrated here illegally. However, the presumption in lower courts has been to assume they are citizens. When Obama loses reelection in 2012, and the Supreme Court tilts further right after that, it's probably a safe bet that there will be a ruling that interprets the Citizenship clause along the original lines. Just think about what happened when the current USSC finally got around to interpreting the 2nd Amendment this year.

    As far as racism motivating some people to say that U.S.-born children of illegal aliens shouldn't automatically be U.S. citizens -- maybe some percentage, but not everyone who supports it is a racist. I have Latinos in my family who don't like the fact that other family members will visit the U.S. in the last month of their pregnancy, just so they can give birth here and give their child American citizenship before they go back to where they really live.

  3. #18
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A*O View Post
    But you have to acknowledge that some illegal immigrants, irrespective of their race, ensure their children are born in the US in order to give the rest of the family the right to stay. I don't think it needs a constitutional amendment either but I don't think it's fair that the system as it stands can be so easily and cynically manipulated.
    Yes I acknowledge that this is the case frequently. I just do not see it as that big of a problem I guess? Yes they are 'anchor babies' often.
    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    The very fact that it was an amendment to the Constitution, and occurred after the Civil War means that this clause/interpretation has not been part of America since the beginning. Moreover, the clause's original author also said that this clause did not apply to "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

    The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on what the clause means for U.S.-born children of people who have immigrated here illegally. However, the presumption in lower courts has been to assume they are citizens. When Obama loses reelection in 2012, and the Supreme Court tilts further right after that, it's probably a safe bet that there will be a ruling that interprets the Citizenship clause along the original lines. Just think about what happened when the current USSC finally got around to interpreting the 2nd Amendment this year.

    As far as racism motivating some people to say that U.S.-born children of illegal aliens shouldn't automatically be U.S. citizens -- maybe some percentage, but not everyone who supports it is a racist. I have Latinos in my family who don't like the fact that other family members will visit the U.S. in the last month of their pregnancy, just so they can give birth here and give their child American citizenship before they go back to where they really live.
    I would say the majority of the opposition is based on race...not all of it. Do you really think that if the parents of the 'anchor baby' were German, or British, or French, that we would even be having this discussion?

    Where is this such a hot topic? The border states(and I am not talking about the Canadian border). You can dress the issue up in as much legalistic and historical bullshit as you want, but in the end..right now..this issue is about RACE. Not immigration...but WHO is immigrating. If they were blond and blue eyed there would not be nearly as much discussion and hand-wringing. Yes your brought up some good points, but it comes down (in the majority, in the end)..to Racism IMHO..YMMV.
    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

  4. #19
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Kill Me View Post
    I think the term "anchor babies" is hateful and disgusting. It is never said or meant in a nice way, its very origin is xenophobic and hateful. There is no positive way to spin that phrase and to add to its offensiveness we're slapping a label on an entire group of people that had no willful part in their existence as an "anchor baby."
    This.
    Tea baggers want to fight the Man because the Man doesn't look like them.

  5. #20
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita View Post
    I would say the majority of the opposition is based on race...not all of it. Do you really think that if the parents of the 'anchor baby' were German, or British, or French, that we would even be having this discussion?

    Where is this such a hot topic? The border states(and I am not talking about the Canadian border). You can dress the issue up in as much legalistic and historical bullshit as you want, but in the end..right now..this issue is about RACE. Not immigration...but WHO is immigrating. If they were blond and blue eyed there would not be nearly as much discussion and hand-wringing. Yes your brought up some good points, but it comes down (in the majority, in the end)..to Racism IMHO..YMMV.
    I disagree. It's such a hot topic because since the last time that mass amnesty was granted for illegal aliens (in the 1980's under Reagan), 12 million additional people have come here illegally. That's a lot of people to absorb no matter where they come from -- and they come from Western Europe and Asia, too. I think people in this country like to see things done in a way where everyone plays by the rules.

  6. #21
    A*O
    A*O is offline
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! A*O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Being Paula
    Posts
    31,675

    Default

    I don't think most people have a problem with migrants per se. They have a problem with those who ignore the appropriate channels and jump the queue. Speaking as a migrant and knowing the hoops we had to jump through to get our residency visas it does piss me off that my taxes are being used to support those who didn't do likewise.
    If all the women in this place were laid end to end, I wouldn’t be surprised - Dorothy Parker

  7. #22
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,417

    Default

    There was an article in my Washington Post today, about Chinese "birth tourism", where people from China buy travel packages specifically geared toward letting them give birth in the United States and get citizenship for their children. Unfortunately, I can't post the article, but here is an earlier one from ABC in a related vein:

    A New Baby Boom? Foreign 'Birth Tourists' Seek U.S. Citizenship for Children


    More Foreign Mothers Live Abroad to Give Birth on U.S. Soil, Debate Over 14th Amendment



    295 comments
    By DEVIN DWYER

    April 14, 2010

    Millions of foreign tourists visit the United States every year, and a growing number return home with a brand new U.S. citizen in tow.



    Thousands of legal immigrants, who do not permanently reside in the United States but give birth here, have given their children the gift of citizenship, which the U.S. grants to anyone born on its soil.
    The number of U.S. births to non-resident mothers rose 53 percent between 2000 and 2006, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Total births rose 5 percent in the same period.
    Among the foreigners who have given birth here, including international travelers passing through and foreign students studying at U.S. universities, are "birth tourists," women who travel to the United States with the explicit purpose of obtaining citizenship for their child.



    Catering to the women is a nascent industry of travel agencies and hotel chains seeking to profit from the business.

    The Marmara Manhattan, a Turkish-owned luxury hotel on New York's City Upper East Side, markets birth tourism packages to expectant mothers abroad, luring more than a dozen pregnant guests and their families to the United States to give birth last year alone.
    "What we offer is simply a one-bedroom suite accommodation for $7,750, plus taxes, for a month, with airport transfer, baby cradle and a gift set for the mother," Marmara Hotel spokeswoman Alexandra Ballantine said.
    The hotel estimates the total cost of the package at $45,000.

    Most women stay for two months, Ballantine said, and they make medical arrangements on their own. "Guests arrange and pay for these by themselves," she said of hospital costs that can approach $30,000.
    For those with the means to pay, it's a small price to give a child the full benefits of U.S. citizenship, including the ability to travel freely to and from the United States, easy access to a U.S. education and a chance to start a life here.

  8. #23
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    59,034

    Default

    so right-wingers get all pissy and bring out their guns the minute those dirty liberals mention even touching the sacrosanct constitution (especially if it has anything to do with ensuring equal rights) but it's fine and dandy if it's to keep mexicans out?

    oh look, all 92 co-sponsors are republicans, except for one democrat from mississippi (quelle surprise).
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1868/show
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  9. #24
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,417

    Default

    Actually, Republicans are big fans of introducing potential constitutional amendments.

    Other recent examples include a federal government spending-limits amendment. Earlier example would be attempts to introduce an anti-flag-burning amendment.

    And as the other article posted here shows, it's people from a fairly wide variety of countries who are exploiting the citizen amendment.

  10. #25
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    59,034

    Default

    ^^^
    i know. i'm just saying i love how they don't want anyone 'messing' with the constitution when it comes to granting people more rights or giving rights to minorities but it's no problem at all when it's to advance their own agendas.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 29th, 2010, 11:14 AM
  2. Federal Court: 'Under God' is constitutional
    By celeb_2006 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 12th, 2010, 01:03 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 26th, 2009, 01:16 AM
  4. School Uniforms challenged across the US
    By Mr. Authority in forum News
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: August 12th, 2007, 10:04 AM
  5. Supreme Court Justice Scalia says abortion rights not constitutional
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 17th, 2006, 02:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •