Republicans Push To Revise 14th Amendment

Bob Blaylock said:
If neither parent is an American citizen, then neither is the child.[/indent]
Click to expand...


And what about a child born to legal immigrants to the United States who have not, as yet, attained full, legal U.S. citizenship? What happens then? Does the child get retroactive citizenship when the parents attain their official citizenship? Is citizenship denied outright to the child? How would it work?
 
Corsair 115 said:
And what about a child born to legal immigrants to the United States who have not, as yet, attained full, legal U.S. citizenship? What happens then? Does the child get retroactive citizenship when the parents attain their official citizenship? Is citizenship denied outright to the child? How would it work?
Click to expand...


Admittedly, there would be quite a few details to be worked out, and I don't claim to be nearly qualified to state them.

Among such details your example, is I think, likely to be among the more common, and the more obvious as how to deal with it.

The best solution here is to probably extend citizenship to any children under eighteen years of age, at the same time their parents gain it. Perhaps this should include those who were under eighteen when their parents passed some key part of the process of gaining citizenship, but who turned eighteen before the process was completed.

Those who are already over eighteen before their parents begin the process of becoming citizens are on their own. If they want citizenship, then they should probably have to go through the process for themselves.
 
quadraginta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fine name one, lets look at it. I'm nor claiming it never ever happens, but I am claiming it is exceedingly rare that the mom of an anchor baby is kicked out of the country simply for being here illegally

BTW I bet dollars to doughnuts that coyote crimes fit under "immigration violations"
 
pipelineaudio said:
Fine name one, lets look at it. I'm nor claiming it never ever happens, but I am claiming it is exceedingly rare that the mom of an anchor baby is kicked out of the country simply for being here illegally

BTW I bet dollars to doughnuts that coyote crimes fit under "immigration violations"
Click to expand...


Leaving aside the insinuations of your earliest claims and the current relevance of "exceedingly rare", I must point out that I have searched in vain for any prior mention of "moms" in your posts.

I'm getting tired chasing your goalposts already. I'll just wait for the next bus, and catch up later.
 
Ok show me a father of an anchor baby who was deported without doing something egregiously stupid
 
pipelineaudio said:
Ok show me a father of an anchor baby who was deported without doing something egregiously stupid
Click to expand...


And so we come full circle.

I told you I'm not inclined to wear myself out chasing goalposts. I suspect that we will soon discover that"egregiously stupid" includes anything related to entering the country illegally.

Over one hundred thousand parents of legal citizens deported between 1997 and 2007.

At least.

That's according to the Dept. of Homeland Security., and doesn't even count the last three years, while they've been ramping up deportations.

I'm willing to believe that one of them didn't do anything "egregiously stupid". I have a premonition that you aren't.
 
quadraginta said:
I'm willing to believe that one of them didn't do anything "egregiously stupid". I have a premonition that you aren't.
Click to expand...

I already stated I believe it could happen, I also stated it would be exceedingly rare. So go ahead, name one parent, who was deported after having an anchor baby and lets have a look at it
 
Thunder said:
I honestly don't believe that the children of illegal aliens should receive automatic citizenship in the USA.

But if they do, then they should not be able to be used as bridges to legalize their illegal parents. Other legal immigrants, yes...but not the illegal parents who bore them.
Click to expand...

It's a brilliant 21 year long plan thoses babies have to get their parents green cards.
 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...numbers&pr=goog-sl#docid=-7212668141276468380

I'm surprised no one has brought this up before now. It shows how a mindset like anti-immigration could come about in our country. Liberals always use the argument, "Well, this country was founded on immigration..." The operative words being 'was founded'. to which one could say, "And your point is?"

was - past tense
founded (past tense) - 1. to set up; to launch; to institute.
2. Use as a basis for; grounded on.
 
So people arguing that we should change and/or revoke the 14th amendment reject the argument that Constitutional rights are sacred merely because they are enumerated in the Constitution, right?

In other words, we can stop all this nonsense about "the right to bear arms" and talk seriously about a ban on guns in the U.S.

Right?
 
johnny karate said:
So people arguing that we should change and/or revoke the 14th amendment reject the argument that Constitutional rights are sacred merely because they are enumerated in the Constitution, right?

In other words, we can stop all this nonsense about "the right to bear arms" and talk seriously about a ban on guns in the U.S.

Right?
Click to expand...

Basically, you're right. We have the ability to amend the constitution. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. It is not an underhanded trick of some type.

An amendment can be proposed that will eliminate the right to bear arms.

However, that has as much chance of passing as do the changes to the 14th.
 
Region Rat said:
Basically, you're right. We have the ability to amend the constitution. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. It is not an underhanded trick of some type.

An amendment can be proposed that will eliminate the right to bear arms.

However, that has as much chance of passing as do the changes to the 14th.
Click to expand...

And do you think that the majority of the proponents for changing/revoking the 14th amendment see it this way, too?
 
johnny karate said:
And do you think that the majority of the proponents for changing/revoking the 14th amendment see it this way, too?
Click to expand...

Probably not, or they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. But it was suggested above that maybe this was just to fire up the torch and pitchfork crowd for the November elections, and they never expected it to get very far. That doesn't sound too far off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom