Birthright Citizenship

[Malerin]

that won't fly.

some people come to America as permanent residents. They are working toward their Citizenship, but requires for them to do a minium of 5 years permanent residency in order to qualify. They have their green cards and are here legally

In 5 years that couple could have kids. Is it fair that their kids are denied citizenship, while their parents are trying to get naturalized?

why would you punish the child because his/her parents were not citizens at the time of his/her birth.

that is why we have birthright citizenship; SO We ARE NOT CREATING A SECOND CLASS OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.

If you're a legal resident, then your child is a citizen.

 

[Thunder]

why would you punish the child because his/her parents were not citizens at the time of his/her birth.

I am in favor of giving birthright citizenship to the children of Permanent Residents, if they are born in the USA.

But if I didn't, how is it "punishing" the children?

if an Italian kid comes to America on vacation and demands citizenship, are we "punishing" him if we say no?

 

[CORed]

This is a thread to discuss the issue related to the 14th amendment and the guarantee within that amendment to birthright citizenship.

I think that this is going to be a huge issue next year. I think that many of the right wingers who brought into the whole Obama Birther nonsense are going to jump onto this bandwagon en-masse. Furthermore, this will not be fought in Congress, although a few congressmen like Steve King of Iowa have brought it up. It will be fought on the local and state level. Here are some of the states that you can expect to see some action on this front from next year:

Arizona
Russell Pearce, the architect of the prison contractor benefits bill also known as SB1070 has been elected the new president of the state Senate. Further, the Arizona house has the biggest Republican margin in decades. Pearce is a Mormon with ties to neo Nazi groups. He has openly called for legislation to deny the children of illegal aliens born in Arizona basic rights such as a birth certificate.

Utah
They are gathering in Utah this weekend to focus on developing anti-immigration laws.
Based on the fact that Pearce of Arizona is going to be there, I expect that he will be pushing for similar legislation attacking the 14th amendment. Not to stereotype, but the Mormon church doesn’t have the best record in their historical dealings with brown skinned people.

Texas
Texas State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) pre-filed seven anti-illegal immigration bills on this morning. These bills won’t be considered until next year, but the fact that he is getting them out now says a lot about the priority he is placing on them. One of the bills HB 292 is exactly the type of bill that Pearce is pushing for in Arizona. The bill attempts to deny the state from issuing a birth certificate to children of illegal aliens by redefining the term “Jurisdiction.”

Georgia
I’m including Georgia on this list because the newly elected Governor, Nathan Deal, is a former congressman who has tried to push similar bills through at the national level. He has also flirted with birtherism and I have no doubt that he will make a push for a similer laws attacking the 14th amendment.

So none of these staunch defenders of the Constitution have heard of the supremacy clause? State laws attempting to amend the Constitution will certainly gain some points with the rabid right wingers, but all of these laws are destined to be tossed out by the Federal courts as soon as anybody attempts to enforce them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Being ineligible for a benefit is not being harmed.

Being stripped of citizenship is being harmed.

Repealing the 14th Amendment would indeed harm people, but I see little to no evidence that it's necessary for solving any problem that has been cited so far.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But if I didn't, how is it "punishing" the children?

if an Italian kid comes to America on vacation and demands citizenship, are we "punishing" him if we say no?

You're confused. The 14th Amendment doesn't give citizenship to people who come here from other countries.

It is harmful to strip a citizen of his or her citizenship. In fact, citizenship is pretty much defined by the collection of privileges and immunities that pertain to it.

The 14th Amendment says, among other things, that anyone born here of parents who are under U.S. jurisdiction (that is, not ambassadors and diplomats) are citizens. It doesn't say they "become" citizens, or that they are naturalized immigrants. They're citizens for exactly the same reason I am a citizen. [ETA: If you stripped me of my citizenship, it would definitely harm me.]

The case law on this has established the interpretation I'm giving it. It does indeed apply to the children of aliens. The case law even took a cue from English common law where anyone born on their soil who of parents who were not ambassadors and the like or enemies of the throne were given citizenship (or the equivalent applicable privileges and immunities).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So none of these staunch defenders of the Constitution have heard of the supremacy clause? State laws attempting to amend the Constitution will certainly gain some points with the rabid right wingers, but all of these laws are destined to be tossed out by the Federal courts as soon as anybody attempts to enforce them.

From what I've read, I think their intention with these laws is to get to a Supreme Court decision (something I doubt will happen) just so that they can lose and then start an amendment campaign.

But I think it's just making political hay by taking advantage of the Tea Party/anti-federal government movement.

Similarly, my state (Missouri) was among those that passed a law that would ban provisions of the Healthcare Affordability Act, even though such a law will fail because of the Supremacy Clause. I'm not too sure why that passed. I attribute it to ignorant voters and money spent on the campaign to pass it.

 

[Thunder]

You're confused. The 14th Amendment doesn't give citizenship to people who come here from other countries.

It is harmful to strip a citizen of his or her citizenship.

Good thing I have never called for American citizens to loose their citizenship. If the 14th is amended, it should not be retroactive, IMHO.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Thunder, what is your concern? I mean, really and truly. The only coherent argument you've made is that they're entitled to fiscal benefits in the form of health and welfare. Do you have any figures that show that the payout is higher than the value of the return on this wee investment by the U.S. taxpayer?

Specifically, do you think these people do not work, or that their labors somehow are not adding sufficiently to the GNP to offset the social expenses?

This whole issue is a teabagger hot button because it's the kind of thing they love. It's goverment by anecdote.

 

[Malerin]

Being stripped of citizenship is being harmed.

Repealing the 14th Amendment would indeed harm people, but I see little to no evidence that it's necessary for solving any problem that has been cited so far.

The 14th would be changed, not repealed, to mirror the English immigration law: at least one parent must be a legal resident. It wouldn't be an ex post facto change. Nobody would be stripped of citizenship.

 

[Malerin]

Thunder, what is your concern? I mean, really and truly. The only coherent argument you've made is that they're entitled to fiscal benefits in the form of health and welfare. Do you have any figures that show that the payout is higher than the value of the return on this wee investment by the U.S. taxpayer?

Specifically, do you think these people do not work, or that their labors somehow are not adding sufficiently to the GNP to offset the social expenses?

This whole issue is a teabagger hot button because it's the kind of thing they love. It's goverment by anecdote.

They don't add sufficiently to the GNP to offset the social expenses. Neither do poor Americans, but there's nothing we can do about denying them citizenship or keeping them out of the country. When employment can't keep up with population growth, the last thing you want to do is bring more poor people into your country.

 

[Foolmewunz]

They don't add sufficiently to the GNP to offset the social expenses. Neither do poor Americans, but there's nothing we can do about denying them citizenship or keeping them out of the country. When employment can't keep up with population growth, the last thing you want to do is bring more poor people into your country.

Do you have anything that gives figures to support this? I've seen only one such study and it's dubious, to say the least.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Congressman Dan Lungren of Calif. jumps on the bandwagon.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/28/3214058/birthright-citizenship-is-ripe.html

 

[Alferd_Packer]

They don't add sufficiently to the GNP to offset the social expenses. Neither do poor Americans, but there's nothing we can do about denying them citizenship or keeping them out of the country. When employment can't keep up with population growth, the last thing you want to do is bring more poor people into your country.

Are you talking about the children? if so, even the children of citizens don't meet that criteria.

Don't get distracted from the fact that this argument is about the children of illegal aliens, not the parents.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They don't add sufficiently to the GNP to offset the social expenses.

In Thunder's words, "Evidence please." If you're making an argument to repeal a significant portion of the 14th Amendment, the burden is on you to prove that there is a big enough problem to warrant such a drastic measure. I don't think it's been proven. It seems to me we only have the rantings of people who are playing politics with people's biased thinking.

Neither do poor Americans, but there's nothing we can do about denying them citizenship or keeping them out of the country.

Of course we can. We could pass an amendment to the constitution that denies citizenship to the children of poor families.

When employment can't keep up with population growth, the last thing you want to do is bring more poor people into your country.

Unemployment doesn't come near to correlating with population growth (or immigration). If the argument to amend the constitution depends on the claim that population growth is a significant cause of unemployment, you'd at the very least need to show a correlation.

 

[Thunder]

In Thunder's words, "Evidence please." If you're making an argument to repeal a significant portion of the 14th Amendment, the burden is on you to prove that there is a big enough problem to warrant such a drastic measure.

since when can the Constitution only be amended when there is a HUGE problem or crisis to solve?

many Amendments were not passed within the context of a crisis, such as the 27th Amendment, which makes any salary change by Congress active only in the next term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

tell us, what crisis did this solve?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

since when can the Constitution only be amended when there is a HUGE problem or crisis to solve?

Since the Constitution was ratified. Article 5 sets a very high standard for amending the constitution for that very reason. [ETA: Though it need not be a "crisis"--just a problem large and important enough that can't be solved except by amendment.]

many Amendments were not passed within the context of a crisis, such as the 27th Amendment, which makes any salary change by Congress active only in the next term.

I think you're confusing "crisis" with a problem large enough and intractable enough that no other solution is possible.

tell us, what crisis did this solve?

It solved a problem that wouldn't be solved through regular legislation. I never once said "crisis". You just made that up, didn't you?

 

[Malerin]

Do you have anything that gives figures to support this? I've seen only one such study and it's dubious, to say the least.

A dated RAND study.

More recent study from FAIR.

Illegal aliens are not venture capitalists. They don't create jobs. They compete for jobs. Their kids are added to an already cash-strapped education system. In California, we have an unemployment rate of 12%. We don't have a labor shortage.

But even ignoring all of the above, why would you want to support a status quo that allows hundreds of thousands of people to illegally come into the country every year? What is your idea for changing immigration policy? Nobody's married to changing the 14th amendment. It's a pipe-dream anyway. If we had a secure border with Mexico, nobody would even be talking about it. If immigrants add to GDP, then they can come here legally and apply for citizenship.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

A dated RAND study.

More recent study from FAIR.

Illegal aliens are not venture capitalists. They don't create jobs. They compete for jobs. Their kids are added to an already cash-strapped education system. In California, we have an unemployment rate of 12%. We don't have a labor shortage.

But again, unemployment figures don't correlate with population. Nor do they correlate with illegal immigration over long periods of time. (We would expect more "push" forces during times of global economic downturns, so even if there were a correlation, that alone doesn't prove your point. But it is a minimum requirement.)

But even ignoring all of the above, why would you want to support a status quo that allows hundreds of thousands of people to illegally come into the country every year?

Compassion and humanitarianism.

The fact that we are a pluralistic nation composed almost entirely of immigrants. In fact, since most Mexicans are mestizo, one could argue that they are more closely ethnically related to the only non-immigrants! Also, the places where the problem is the worst (Texas and the Southwest) are lands we actually took by military force from Mexico in relatively recent history, so morally, I find it very difficult to justify prohibitive immigrant policies.

Also I find it problematic that people are giving in to irrational arguments not based on facts.

For example, in trying to defend a move to repeal part of the 14th Amendment so that the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. aren't U.S. citizens, they cite a study like this one:

A dated RAND study.

that is not about illegal immigration.

And the other study just lists some costs of illegal immigration without taking into account any of the benefits to our economy. If you do a cost/benefit analysis and leave out the benefits, you'll always get a net cost. You could do the same with citizens born of citizen parents.

Again, before you come close to proving that illegal immigration causes unemployment, you'd have to at least prove a correlation.

 

[deepatrax]

But again, unemployment figures don't correlate with population. Nor do they correlate with illegal immigration over long periods of time. (We would expect more "push" forces during times of global economic downturns, so even if there were a correlation, that alone doesn't prove your point. But it is a minimum requirement.)



Compassion and humanitarianism.

The fact that we are a pluralistic nation composed almost entirely of immigrants. In fact, since most Mexicans are mestizo, one could argue that they are more closely ethnically related to the only non-immigrants! Also, the places where the problem is the worst (Texas and the Southwest) are lands we actually took by military force from Mexico in relatively recent history, so morally, I find it very difficult to justify prohibitive immigrant policies.

Also I find it problematic that people are giving in to irrational arguments not based on facts.

For example, in trying to defend a move to repeal part of the 14th Amendment so that the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. aren't U.S. citizens, they cite a study like this one:


that is not about illegal immigration.

And the other study just lists some costs of illegal immigration without taking into account any of the benefits to our economy. If you do a cost/benefit analysis and leave out the benefits, you'll always get a net cost. You could do the same with citizens born of citizen parents.

Again, before you come close to proving that illegal immigration causes unemployment, you'd have to at least prove a correlation.

Agreed.

In fact, you've all convinced me.

The benefits of allowing ILLEGALS to be U.S. citizens is overwhelming.

In fact, the 14th Amendment should be changed to read:

"Any person who crosses the U.S. Border will become a U.S. citizen"

simple...and beneficial to us all!!

Your sitting in your shack eating dirt in whatever ******** of a country you live in?...Come to America!

- Live on welfare and foodstamps all your life.
- Get a free education for your children
- Get free healthcare and housing

this beats any life they were leading in their home country!

Edited breach of Rule 10. Do not swear in your posts.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[sol invictus]

you tell me. it is easier for an American to immigrate to and become a citizen of Mexico, or vice-versa?

and evidence please.

There are hundreds of thousands of American retirees in Mexico, and I've never heard of any having trouble immigrating. How many Mexican retirees do you know in the US?

Being ineligible for a benefit is not being harmed.

Precisely as predicted:

Now you might try to weasel that citizenship is not a right, it's a privilege - and so this isn't a penalty, it's the lack of a benefit. Should we then also deny citizenship to children born of convicted murderers? That's a vastly more serious crime than a visa violation, after all. What about future felons (since at the time of the child's birth, the immigration status of the parents is presumably not known to be illegal) - shall we remove citizenship from children with parents that are later convicted of a felony? And what about poor brown people? Odds are their kids are going to be poor and brown too, right?