14th Amendment

[Snaquebite]

Searching indicates the last thread that even discussed the 14th Ammendment was in 2006.

I'd like to hear what folks think regarding the interpretation and current application of this ammendment specifically regarding the offspring of two illegal aliens.

When the ammendment was written there were no restrictions on immigration. IMHO the purpose was to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves.

Many legal scholars feel the 14th Amendment (citizenship clause) could be altered by federal statue without amending the Constitution.

Arizona (Pierce) is working on a Bill to provide for this and it appears that many other states will jump on board.

Does ILLEGAL + ILLEGAL = LEGAL?

[Team Sergeant]

What, change the law for the "Anchor babies"!!!!

This should have NEVER been legal, ever.

[JAGO]

Here is a bit of reading from 1898 for those interested:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=169&invol=649

U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

It is worth noting that Wong Kim's parents at the time of his birth were lawfully in the US so it can be distinguished.

v/r
JAGO

[Snaquebite]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Many argue that illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (unless the perform an illegal act) for which they would be prosecuted. Otherwise they are subject only subject to deportation and then the laws of their country.

Could this be a matter of interpretation and intent?

[Snaquebite]

JAGO: Good read...Thanks

This quote stood out....

The fourteenth amendment was not designed to accord citizenship to persons so situated, [referring to children of aliens] and to cut off the legislative power from dealing with the subject.

The right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized or taken any steps towards becoming citizens of a country is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the county. 149 U.S. 707 , 13 Sup. Ct. 1016.

[craigepo]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

What, change the law for the "Anchor babies"!!!!

This should have NEVER been legal, ever.

Actually, once upon a time it made sense. For example, James and Mary immigrate from Germany/Ireland/Wales in 1810(or whatever year the law was passed). They hit the beach, then have kids in Boston. James and Mary may never go through classes, or otherwise do what they have to do to become "citizens". However, they were never going to re-locate outside the U.S., and wound up dying here. They paid taxes(as they were), got called up by the militia, went to church, etc.


Their children might have learned the old language as well as English, might have grown up on food that tasted like the old country, might have even grown up in an Irish/German/whatever neighborhood. But, they were "American".

As I have ranted before, what we need to do today is re-define "immigration". "Immigration" must mean pledging loyalty, intending to remain in the U.S., sharing in our triumphs and tragedies, etc. Showing up here, having an anchor baby while working illegally, is not within my definition of "immigration". Work visa, maybe. Call it whatever, it should not confer citizenship as we have done for so long.

[Snaquebite]

As I have ranted before, what we need to do today is re-define "immigration".

Good point....So are we talking about "illegal aliens" vice "immigrants"?

Based on your observation/definition, an immigrant would be here legally.

Alien: 1 a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : strange b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government

Immigrant: one that immigrates: as a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by craigepo

As I have ranted before, what we need to do today is re-define "immigration". "Immigration" must mean pledging loyalty, intending to remain in the U.S., sharing in our triumphs and tragedies, etc. Showing up here, having an anchor baby while working illegally, is not within my definition of "immigration". Work visa, maybe. Call it whatever, it should not confer citizenship as we have done for so long.

craigepo for Immigration Czar!

No, really. Or someone who thinks this way and this clearly.

We could seize the anchor babies as a rescue from an alien influence, deport the parents since they are subversive (how can non-Americans be allowed to raise Americans to be Americans when they don't want to be American? Or worse, WE don't want them to be Americans?) we could set up boarding schools.
Or,
I remember a proposal back when I was stationed in Germany -- when a Soldier got a Fraulein pregnant and she neither wanted the baby nor an abortion; upon birth, the wee thing was transfered to the Company Property Book, given the First sergeant's last name and assigned to the Repo Platoon (Provisional).

Back to seriousness. Craigepo, you are definately on to something in the define the problem area. Solving the problem is still going to be a royal pain.

[longrange1947]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

craigepo for Immigration Czar!

No, really. Or someone who thinks this way and this clearly.

...............................................

Back to seriousness. Craigepo, you are definately on to something in the define the problem area. Solving the problem is still going to be a royal pain.

Actually solving will be much easier when they decide to stop thinking PC and thinking what is good for the US, aot a political party agenda, not a liberal moonbat agenda, not a right wing Nazi agenda, best for the US.

It will cause pooched out lips and the libs will raise hell, as will the Latino activists, but tough!

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Opens a can of worms. If you allow that to happen you are saying it is ok to change the other amendments ie first and second in the same manner. The only true way to make that "fix" is to change it the way it is supposed to.

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

I don't have the knowledge to comment on that without a lot of research, however I don't believe they should keep from deporting an illegal just because their kid is a citizen. Ship kids back with their illegal parents and when they are adults they can come back if they chose to claim their US citizenship.

IMO, these two posts contradict each other. How does sending American children out of the country and then making them "claim" their citizenship square with the Bill of Rights?

Originally Posted by JAGO

Entire post.

Originally Posted by Snaquebite

Could this be a matter of interpretation and intent?

And then whose intent? If we include the intent of the politicians who wrote the Chinese Exclusion Acts as well as other examples of race/ethnicity based immigration policy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a nuanced view of our past may limit our political effectiveness today.

Originally Posted by craigepo

<<SNIP>>

As I have ranted before, what we need to do today is re-define "immigration". "Immigration" must mean pledging loyalty, intending to remain in the U.S., sharing in our triumphs and tragedies, etc. Showing up here, having an anchor baby while working illegally, is not within my definition of "immigration". Work visa, maybe. Call it whatever, it should not confer citizenship as we have done for so long.

Originally Posted by Snaquebite

Good point....So are we talking about "illegal aliens" vice "immigrants"?

Based on your observation/definition, an immigrant would be here legally.

Alien: 1 a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : strange b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government

Immigrant: one that immigrates: as a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

And while we're redefining our terms, how do we approach the issue of "loyalty"? While it is, in my view, very easy to define "disloyalty," establishing a rubric for evaluating loyal behavior would be a formidable--but worthwhile--task.

Originally Posted by Dozer523

<<SNIP>>Craigepo, you are definitely on to something in the define the problem area. Solving the problem is still going to be a royal pain.

FWIW, I agree. I think we need to find a way to 'de-link' the contemporaneous political debate over immigration reform from the historiography. Yet, somehow, this de-linkage must not be an act of collective amnesia nor denial.

Originally Posted by longrange1947

Entire post.

LR1947--

Your post raises a set of complex questions.

1. Are a nation's strategic interests 'organic' self-evident truths?
2. If not, who determines those interests?
3. In America's case, should the definition of those interests be determined by elite groups or should the rank and file also have a say?

IMHO, solving the immigration problem will not be easy even if Americans had the political will to address the issues. One of the biggest stumbling blocks will remain the fact that the history of immigration and immigration policy do not lend easy answers to those who want lasting reform.

My $0.02. But even then, there's still another $51.00 or so in loose change to count at the start and end of every day's shift. (I never thought I could hate dimes as much as I loathe pennies.)**
_____________________________________________
* This post was written with the generous assistance of five cups of mediocre coffee.
** How about that. There's about a cup and a half left in the pot. Heck, I can't let that last bit just sit there....

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

It is not contradictory.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Would you prefer to take them away from their parents and put them with an "american" family against their will ala nazi Germany in the 30' and 40's? How about just let the system work as it is and let the illegals stay?

I have advocated neither of these straw men options. In regards to the latter, IMO the statement that illegal immigrants are allowed to stay merits some measure of qualification. The number of deportations has doubled in the last decade (source is here, additional data are available here).

As for your interpretation of modern Germany's social policies centering around adoption and family planning, I respectfully ask two questions:

1. Specifically what are Nazi adoption policies to which you refer?
2. What are your sources?

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

craigepo for Immigration Czar!

No, really. Or someone who things this way and this clearly.

We could seize the anchor babies as a rescue from an alien influence, deport the parents since they are subversive (how can non-Americans be allowed to raise Americans to be Americans when they don't want to be American? Or worse, WE don't want them to be Americans?) we could set up boarding schools.
Or,
I remember a proposal back when I was stationed in Germany -- when a Soldier got a Fraulein pregnant and she neither wanted the baby nor an abortion; upon birth, the wee thing was transfered to the Company Property Book, given the First sergeant's last name and assigned to the Repo Platoon (Provisional).

Back to seriousness. Craigepo, you are definately on to something in the define the problem area. Solving the problem is still going to be a royal pain.

Dozer,

Believe it or not,you're not to far off on the German rule of thumb regarding a Fraulein's pregnancy in the late 50's.........First of all she couldn't get an abortion,what the Army decided was they would wait until the baby was born and an American doctor along with a German doctor examined the new born and decided who ever the Fraulien claimed as the father resembled the father she claimed..........If they determined that he/she was his,he was required to support that child until he/she was 18 years old............. Once the girl claimed the soldier as the father he was required to stay in Germany regardless if his ETS came first,he had to stay until it was decided................ What would be a bummer is if the child was black and she picked a white guy............

Big Teddy

[rdret1]

http://germany.usembassy.gov/acs/dual_nationality.html


Like many on this board, one of my children was born in Germany. He has dual citizenship for now. The same rules should apply in regards to Mexico. The child is a born citizen until a certain age and then has to make a decision. This does not extend to the parents who can only apply for naturalization.

[rdret1]

Also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ationality_law

[Crue]

I maybe in the minority but I believe it is a slippery slope when you start wanting to interpret commas in the Constitution for more than what they are. The Second Amendment is constantly being assaulted just for this very reason.

I think if we attack the problem at the root we will be more successful. How are illegal alien parents supporting their "legal" children? There must be someone paying them...