US Born Children of Illegal Immigrants

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by TraderTactics, Aug 13, 2010.

  1. The citizenship of children of illegal immigrants is now under fire. Some are suggesting for the amendment of the constitution so that the so called anchored babies will not be granted citizenship.

    Full story

    Is it worth amending the constitution for?
     
  2. Is it worth sealing the border for?
     
  3. What will change if we deny citizenship to newborns?

    The law worked fine or the issue was under the radar for > 100 years but today there's a problem?
     
  4. Revising birthright citizenship will never happen...too much historical reasons behind birthright citizenship. Think about it...what about the grand children, great grand children, great great grand children born in the United States after originating from illegals living in the U.S.

    Simply, this is more than about the first children of illegals...it'll make generation after generation not U.S. citizens going forward although born in the U.S. just because mom, grandma or great grandma was an illegal.

    Regardless, if congress becomes too drunk and passes such a revision...the high courts will pull them over and give them a breathalyzer test to make sure that congress wasn't legally drunk when/if a revision is approved prior to arresting them for stupidity. :D

    I can see the military wanting to help..."anyone that joins the U.S. military and born in the U.S. will become an automatic citizen if the parents were illegals". Gotta be prepare to protect all that black gold and blue gold that's located in foreign countries. :cool:

    Mark
     
  5. Once again, the republicans are too stupid and too gutless to argue the point correctly which allows the radical left to frame the argument suiting their agenda. This law, like so many other laws, does not need to be changed. It simply needs to be interpreted and enforced correctly. Correct interpretation below:

    The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
    Therefore the correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

    Some history:
    In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
    The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense.

    You don't need to be a legal scholar or constitutional wizard to figure this out, but you do need to be honest enough to put the needs of the country first rather than your political agenda. Since both parties have an agenda, one for building a base of voters, the other for building a base of slave labor, the country will suffer the consequences.
     
  6. Cut down on the illegals coming here to drop their kid to get all free the social support?
     
  7. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Doesn't Barry claim to be a constitutional scholar? :)
     
  8. It won't help.

    Lets now pretend such a revision did pass. What will be the citizenship of my friends baby that will be born in 3 months considering my friend was born in the U.S., served honorably in the U.S. military as an officer.

    However, her mom 65 years old (the baby's grandma) is an illegal.

    Simply, will the baby that will be born in the U.S. be consider a U.S. citizen or an illegal immigrant due to the status of the grandma ???

    Mark
     
  9. You are asking if any revision would be retroactive, and I would assume the answer is no, considering how disruptive that would be.

    the point is that the 14th Amendment was drafted to insure that the children of slaves were citizens. No one said anything about illegal aliens. An obscure Supreme Court decision suggested they should be citizens.

    The realproblem is that it is virtually impossible for citizens to challenge this interpretation. Like the Obama birther cases, the courts will not entertain challenges to the current interpretation of birth citizenship. A plaintiff has to have a personal stake in the matter, not just object ot the policy. The only way to get this into the courts is for some future administration to announce that it will no longer grant birth citizenship. I think this would be a very interesting question to ask presidential candidates.
     
  10. If people wish to revise the 14th Amendment or any other part of the Constitution, I suggest they start at the top and begin with the 2nd.
     
    #10     Aug 13, 2010