Republicans Push To Revise 14th Amendment

[Bob Blaylock]

We also don't believe in rewarding a child for crimes committed by his parents either.

If a man commits a robbery, and gives the loot that he thus stole to his child, do we let the child keep it?

.. I'm not sure comparing place of birth to a robbery is at all appropriate. On top of that, you are conveniently forgetting it'd also punish the child if we don't reward the child, implying there is a middle option when there.. isn't.

Assuming we're talking about a Mexican mother and a Mexican father, if they were in Mexico when the child was born, that child would be a citizen of Mexico, and not of any other nation.

So, why should the fact that these parents illegally came into our nation, and were here in violation of our laws when the child was born, entitle that child to any different citizenship than if they stayed in Mexico?

I disagree that denying such a child American citizenship constitutes “punishment”. I don't agree that the child is ethically entitled to any such citizenship in the first place, any more than the child of a thief is entitled to any share of that which his parent stole from others.

 

[Region Rat]

.. I'm not sure comparing place of birth to a robbery is at all appropriate. On top of that, you are conveniently forgetting it'd also punish the child if we don't reward the child, implying there is a middle option when there.. isn't.

Well, these days everyone gets a trophy, you know.

Regarding the robbery analogy though, the robbery is the illegal act, much like the illegal entry into the country. The benefit of the robbery is the children getting to keep the money, much like the kid keeping his citizenship.

I actually wonder if there is a legal way to prevent citizenship other than amending the constitution. Spoils of an illegal act, or something like that.

 

[pipelineaudio]

So I'm seeing several argumetns.

1. ANCHOR BABIES !11!!!1111!
[Can you name a single case in arizona where an anchor baby's parents were deported? Not put on a deportation list, but deported.]

Uhm.. no. But hey, I have stats.

I'd call that a pretty firm no. If you want to go further into how many convicted of "simple assault"(obviously a victimless crime) get to stay vs get deported, I'd love to see that as well.

But no, parents of anchor babies are not deported for having anchor babies, and deporting them at all is a nightmare of legaleze

 

[Alt+F4]

My granddaughter was born in the USA of a native born American mother. Her father is native born Northern Ireland. She automatically starts life with a dual citizenship.

My father was born in the Republic of Ireland, not the UK. I think the law is different between the two. I could apply for dual citizenship but it's not automatic.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'd call that a pretty firm no. If you want to go further into how many convicted of "simple assault"(obviously a victimless crime) get to stay vs get deported, I'd love to see that as well.

But no, parents of anchor babies are not deported for having anchor babies, and deporting them at all is a nightmare of legaleze

You should have read the next bit. Which, you know, counters everything you just said.

But hey, why read facts when you can just spout your opinion, right?

 

[CORed]

For starters, there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that they will be able to get the votes necessary to begin the process to change the constitution. Furthermore, there is even less of a snowball's chance in hell that they will be able to override the inevitable presidential veto. Lastly, getting 3/4 of the states to ratify it would be impossible.

All three steps necessary to do what they are proposing would be impossible without widespread support from both parties.

There's no need to debate whether or not the constitution should be changed in this issue. There is no way they'd get the support to do it anyway. Do you have any clue how difficult it is to change the constitution?

The president doesn't have a veto on a constitutional amendment; however, 2/3 of both houses is required to send it to the states (same as to override a veto for regular legislation). As you correctly stated, 3/4 of the states have to ratify it after Congress passes it. I agree that it's pretty unlikely to pass. I wouldn't put it past the Republicans, while they're messing with the 14th amendment, to add language to the effect that the equal protection clause doesn't apply to gay marriage, especially if the overturning of California's Proposition 8 holds up on appeal. Messing with the equal protection clause would bother me a lot more than denying citizenship to children of illegal aliens.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Well, these days everyone gets a trophy, you know.

Regarding the robbery analogy though, the robbery is the illegal act, much like the illegal entry into the country. The benefit of the robbery is the children getting to keep the money, much like the kid keeping his citizenship.

I actually wonder if there is a legal way to prevent citizenship other than amending the constitution. Spoils of an illegal act, or something like that.

Except with a robbery, if the child doesn't get the money, the child is not harmed.

 

[Alt+F4]

We also don't believe in rewarding a child for crimes committed by his parents either.

If a man commits a robbery, and gives the loot that he thus stole to his child, do we let the child keep it?

Good god, do you understand the legal definition of who is responsible for the commision of a crime?

Do you also understand that being born in the U.S is not a crime?

 

[Alt+F4]

I actually wonder if there is a legal way to prevent citizenship other than amending the constitution. Spoils of an illegal act, or something like that.

I already said how, see above.

 

[Region Rat]

Good god, do you understand the legal definition of who is responsible for the commision of a crime?

Do you also understand that being born in the U.S is not a crime?

I don't think anyone is saying that being born in the US is a crime, or that the kid is a criminal that has to be punished. I certainly have not said that.

However, the parents, if they are illegal aliens, have committed a crime. They are responsible for the commission of that crime. Do you agree?

If the parents must be deported due to that crime, they need to take their kid with them. It only makes sense.

The fact that the kid is not an automatic citizen of wherever he happens to pop out of his mother is not in any way any sort of punishment to the kid. His parents are responsible for the birth of the kid, and where they happen to be when the kid is born.

It seems like the thought is that the kid wins the lottery when he is born, and we are depriving him of his winnings.

 

[pipelineaudio]

You should have read the next bit. Which, you know, counters everything you just said.

No, it didn't.

Show me a single parent of an anchor baby deported. I'll admit I wasn't specific enough, and I'll include "without committing another offense"

If you spawn an anchor baby, you are staying, unless you do something so remarkably stupid that the feds have to take notice and kick you out. Show me a single case to the contrary

 

[thaiboxerken]

Assuming we're talking about a Mexican mother and a Mexican father, if they were in Mexico when the child was born, that child would be a citizen of Mexico, and not of any other nation.

So, why should the fact that these parents illegally came into our nation, and were here in violation of our laws when the child was born, entitle that child to any different citizenship than if they stayed in Mexico?

Would you feel the same about illegal Canadian immigrants or Dutch?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I actually wonder if there is a legal way to prevent citizenship other than amending the constitution. Spoils of an illegal act, or something like that.

I would have to think not. As the Fourteenth Amendment currently stands, I think it is unambiguous—anyone born in the United States or under United States jurisdiction is a citizen. To change this, we need to amend the Constitution.

What I would most support is an Amendment that makes citizenship entirely hereditary, as follows…

If both parents are American citizens, then so is the child, regardless of where the birth actually took place.

If only one parent is an American citizen, then the child would provisionally have dual citizenship between America and whatever nation the non-American parent is a citizen of, with the provision that at some point not too far into adulthood, the child must choose one or the other.

If neither parent is an American citizen, then neither is the child.​

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We also don't believe in rewarding a child for crimes committed by his parents either.

If a man commits a robbery, and gives the loot that he thus stole to his child, do we let the child keep it?

Good god, do you understand the legal definition of who is responsible for the commision of a crime?

Do you also understand that being born in the U.S is not a crime?

Being the child of a robber isn't a crime either. This doesn't mean that the child gets to keep what his father steals.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Assuming we're talking about a Mexican mother and a Mexican father, if they were in Mexico when the child was born, that child would be a citizen of Mexico, and not of any other nation.

So, why should the fact that these parents illegally came into our nation, and were here in violation of our laws when the child was born, entitle that child to any different citizenship than if they stayed in Mexico?

Would you feel the same about illegal Canadian immigrants or Dutch?

Yes, absolutely. Or British immigrants or Irish immigrants or Japanese immigrants, or Kenyan immigrants or Icelandic immigrants or Fijiian immigrants, or immigrants from wherever else.

The only reason that we're primarily talking about Mexican immigrants is that as far as is obvious, Mexico appears to be the source of the vast majority of our trouble with illegal, uncontrolled immigration.

 

[quadraginta]

I'd call that a pretty firm no. If you want to go further into how many convicted of "simple assault"(obviously a victimless crime) get to stay vs get deported, I'd love to see that as well.

But no, parents of anchor babies are not deported for having anchor babies, and deporting them at all is a nightmare of legaleze

No, it didn't.

Show me a single parent of an anchor baby deported. I'll admit I wasn't specific enough, and I'll include "without committing another offense"

If you spawn an anchor baby, you are staying, unless you do something so remarkably stupid that the feds have to take notice and kick you out. Show me a single case to the contrary

Is a hundred thousand or so enough?

This, according to the Dept. of Homeland Security.

More than 100,000 parents whose children are U.S. citizens were deported over the decade that ended in 2007, a Department of Homeland Security’s investigation has found.

The parents were removed from the country on immigration violations or because they had committed crimes. The removals of the 108,434 parents were among the approximately 2.2 million carried out by immigration officials between 1998 and 2007, Homeland Security Inspector General Richard Skinner said in a report made public Friday.

Of course, that article was from Feb., '09. And those numbers were probably low.

Skinner warned the numbers were incomplete because Immigration and Customs Enforcement doesn’t fully document such cases. The agency also does not keep track of how many children each parent has. He recommended immigration officials start collecting more data on removed parents and their children.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, absolutely. .

Why?

 

[Alt+F4]

Being the child of a robber isn't a crime either. This doesn't mean that the child gets to keep what his father steals.

No one can steal United States citizenship. If I am wrong please explain in legal terms how one person can steal United States citizenship give it to someone else.

Bob, are you U.S. citizen? If so, you are not familiar with our laws.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Is a hundred thousand or so enough?

Did you read what you quoted?

 

[quadraginta]

Did you read what you quoted?

Sure.

Are you going to try and weasel out on the "... or because they had committed crimes." part? Or is getting caught at all the hook you'll try and hang "remarkably stupid" on. That would be pretty weaselly, too.

It seems like "The parents were removed from the country on immigration violations ..." part of that hundred thousand ought to satisfy your criteria.