• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Birthright Citizenship

Alferd_Packer said:
What normal person wants to?



I do not believe thatthat is true. Resident Aliens and non citizens work for the government all the time.



Where? If you are a permanent resident alien who was born in this country where would they deport you to?




Is that going to stop anyone from doing it? Is your a crook, then no. If you are not a crook, then why would you want to?




A permanent resident alien of the sort Thunder is proposing would not have any restrictions on travel



Or what? If you were born here, they cant deport you to the place of your birth.



I tink that you can even get some jobs requiring security clearance as an alien, but it would be a case by case thing.

There are only three things that Thuder's Permanent Resident Alien propsosal would reall effect, the right to vote, Jury duty and the right to a U.S. Passport.
Click to expand...

I was not talking about Thunder's hypothetical Permanent Resident but what currently exists.

There is very limited exceptions to non-citizens getting security clearances:
Can non-US citizens obtain security clearances?
No. Non-US citizens can not obtain a security clearance; however, they may be granted a Limited Access Authorization (LAA). LAAs are grant in those rare circumstances where the non-US citizen possesses unique or unusual skill or expertise that is urgently needed to support a specific US Government contract involving access to specified classified information (no higher than Secret), and a cleared or clearable US citizen is not readily available.
Click to expand...
http://www.clearancejobs.com/security_clearance_faq.pdf

And I would be one of those non-normal people who serves in public office. On a local level in a non-paid, but elected position.
 
Spindrift said:
There is very limited exceptions to non-citizens getting security clearances:
Click to expand...

The friend I mentioned was told that the VA would probably get her an exception like this, but it didn't pan out.

At any rate, getting a special exception is still a different situation than the privileged status of a citizen.
 
sol invictus said:
Sorry? I simply asked you a question, which you still have't answered.

Presumably you don't believe that children should be stripped of their citizenship if their parents commit crimes of most sorts. And yet, you do believe they should be stripped of their citizenship if it turns out that their parents committed an immigration violation.
Click to expand...

They can't be stripped of their citizenship because they never were citizens.

This problem is not exclusive to proposed changes to the 14th amendment. Just recently the president of the Fresno State University student body admitted to being an illegal immigrant. His parents brought him here when he was three. What do we do with him?

Denial of a constitutional right is most certainly harming someone. For example, I have the right not to be imprisoned without a fair trial of my peers. I have the right to free speech and free assembly. But according to you, denying me that "benefit" isn't harming me.
Click to expand...

There's no denial of a constituional right because there would BE no constitutional right to citizenship based on birth alone.
 
sol invictus said:
What I meant to illustrate was that denying people constitutional rights is obviously harmful, whereas Malerin would have us believe that taking one away (citizenship for a baby born in the US to parents later determined to have been here illegally) would merely be the removal of a benefit... and therefore not a harm.

As for due process - are people charged with immigration violations entitled to a trial by jury?
Click to expand...

Such a child was never a citizen in the first place. Does a con artist who gets caught with a forged medical degree get stripped of being a doctor? No, they were never a doctor at all.
 
Malerin said:
Such a child was never a citizen in the first place. Does a con artist who gets caught with a forged medical degree get stripped of being a doctor? No, they were never a doctor at all.
Click to expand...

The constitution and the Supreme Court seem to disagree with you.
 
Malerin said:
We were talking in the context of a change to the 14th amendment ala Britain (one parent must be a citizen/legal resident).
Click to expand...
It seemed like you were arguing the present case, otherwise the following would be superfluous.

Malerin said:
Does a con artist who gets caught with a forged medical degree get stripped of being a doctor? No, they were never a doctor at all.
Click to expand...

Your analogy doesn't work anyway. A medical degree is not a right that one a receives by being born here.
 
This is ten pages of sound and fury. Nearly all European countries have a jus sanguinis nationality policy requiring at least one parent be a citizen/legal resident. As do Japan, Russia, China, Australia, New Zealand, India, Israel, etc.

The world will not end if we follow suit.
 
Malerin said:
This is ten pages of sound and fury. Nearly all European countries have a jus sanguinis nationality policy requiring at least one parent be a citizen/legal resident. As do Japan, Russia, China, Australia, New Zealand, India, Israel, etc.

The world will not end if we follow suit.
Click to expand...

Nearly all European countries have socialized medicine. As do Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand.

The world will not end if we follow suit.
 
Malerin said:
This is ten pages of sound and fury. Nearly all European countries have a jus sanguinis nationality policy requiring at least one parent be a citizen/legal resident. As do Japan, Russia, China, Australia, New Zealand, India, Israel, etc.

The world will not end if we follow suit.
Click to expand...

That's the worst sort of straw man argument there is. No one has claimed that the world would end.

Most of us are merely arguing that there is no justification for amending the constitution as you and Thunder and others are suggesting.

If anything, you are the ones claiming that the sky is falling because children born in the U.S. of illegal parents are U.S. citizens. Sadly, you haven't been able to back up your claims.

ETA: But I agree this entire thread is a lot of sound and fury that will come to nothing. The proposed Arizona law that sparked this discussion will never be enacted and the amendment you and Thunder are arguing for will never be ratified.
 
Last edited:
Malerin said:
Such a child was never a citizen in the first place. Does a con artist who gets caught with a forged medical degree get stripped of being a doctor? No, they were never a doctor at all.
Click to expand...

Malerin said:
We were talking in the context of a change to the 14th amendment ala Britain (one parent must be a citizen/legal resident).
Click to expand...

Spindrift said:
It seemed like you were arguing the present case, otherwise the following would be superfluous.
Click to expand...

I think the present tense stuff--or arguing as if this hypothetical constitutional amendment had already been enacted--is just a way of trying to shift the burden of argumentation.

They claim that we need a constitutional amendment--something that is such a big deal, it's only happened 17 times since the Constitution itself was ratified (remember, the first 10 Amendments were part and parcel of the Constitution--ratification would never have happened without them). Yet there seems not to be any great pressing problem that can only be solved by a constitutional amendment. So instead, Malerin has shifted the burden by pretending such an amendment is already the law, and challenging us to justify changing it back.
 
Malerin said:
Spindrift said:
Nearly all European countries have socialized medicine. As do Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand.

The world will not end if we follow suit.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but maybe you missed the point.

Many of the very same people who support repealing the 14th Amendment also oppose UHC and reject the idea that something shown to be effective in other countries is desirable (or will work) here. Many of them claimed such things were untested experimentation with our health care and economy.

Yet now many of them are pointing to the policies of other countries and saying we should rely on their examples when it comes to denying citizenship to babies born of illegal parents.

And again, my point is that the burden of argumentation is on those who would amend our constitution. An amendment is a big change, and yet there doesn't seem to be any significant problem that can only be solved by constitutional amendment.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
ETA: But I agree this entire thread is a lot of sound and fury that will come to nothing. The proposed Arizona law that sparked this discussion will never be enacted and the amendment you and Thunder are arguing for will never be ratified.
Click to expand...

That may be so, but there is considerable evidence that there wil be a lot of noise on this issue in the comming year.

Already several congressmen and state reps. have been laying the groundwork for this issue.
 
Malerin said:
They can't be stripped of their citizenship because they never were citizens.
Click to expand...

That is in direct contradiction to what Congressman Steve king says. He has been quallifying his proposals with the statement that they will not take away the citizenship of anyone already deemed to be a citizen.

However, logically, if he is trying to force a "judicial legislation" i.e. a court decision that will change the interpretation of the amendment so that "anchor Babies" are not considered citizens, what Malerin states is exactly what will happen.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Of course if you were really cynical and conspiracy minded, you could claim that the whole GOP push to get rid of birthright citizenship is nothing more than a plot to disenfrancise potential democratic voters.
Click to expand...

Considering that the GOP uses "Democrats want more immigration because it will bring in more Democratic voters" as a talking point, I don't think that's really all too cynical.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
That may be so, but there is considerable evidence that there wil be a lot of noise on this issue in the comming year.

Already several congressmen and state reps. have been laying the groundwork for this issue.
Click to expand...

Yep. And several states (including Missouri) passed legislation that would cancel at least key provisions of the Healthcare Affordability Act, but the Supremacy Clause prohibits states from passing laws that contradict federal legislation.

There is also the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of that legislation, but it too will come to naught.

I agree there will be a lot of noise, but I think it's scurrilous of these Tea Party types to play on popular fears and misconceptions when they themselves know there is no legal foundation for what they're saying.

And the anti-immigrant hysteria is a perennial scapegoating tactic that's been going on for a looooong time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom