or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bill to Alter Birthright Citizenship Amendment
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bill to Alter Birthright Citizenship Amendment

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
House Republicans Introduce Bill to Repeal Birthright Citizenship Amendment

Quote:
Reps. Steve King of Iowa, George Miller of California and Rob Woodall and Phil Gingrey, both of Georgia, said the current practice of extending U.S. citizenship to so-called "anchor babies" is a "misapplication" of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

The article I believe is incorrectly titled as it states later in the article:

Quote:
The House legislation would amend Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. Technically, it would not overturn the 14th Amendment, which would require three-quarters of states to ratify a joint resolution of Congress.

So what do you think? Does it make sense or not to make this change? As it states in the article:

Quote:
Automatic citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which was read on the House floor on Thursday. The provision, ratified in 1868, was drafted with freed slaves in mind.

I am torn on this. Some of the arguments made against this amendment quoted in the article make me roll my eyes. Such as:

Quote:
"These thoughtless and unnecessary proposals take our country in the wrong direction, away from inclusion and our other core American values," Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza. "The citizenship clause is a bedrock principle of civil rights and part of what makes us all Americans. Never in our nation's history have we amended the Constitution to take away someone's rights, and we should not do so now."

This is obviously wrong as Prohibition did just that. Yes it was repealed in the end due to the obvious issues with it.

Can we have a civil discussion on this?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #2 of 9
I know of at least one person that came to the US on a vacation visa for the only purpose to give birth and obtain US citizenship for their child. This person hid their pregnancy when getting the visa and lied to get it. That is wrong and should not be allowed. What other country allows that?

I would say that if you are here on a green card or other permanent resident status then your offspring should have the option of US citizenship. If you are here in a temp visa or illegally then your offspring can enjoy the same citizenship you have.
post #3 of 9
Quote:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
with silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

I guess this doesn't mean shit anymore. Sad, really. It's part of what made our country so noble. Stripping away all of our compassion and tolerance does not a beacon on a hill make.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #4 of 9
Yes because someone suggests that we should not support fraud and criminality in assignment of citizenship, then all the words in a poem no longer apply but the hyperbole does of course.

There is indeed a load of bullshit somewhere in that reasoning. It's just misassigned of course.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 9
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I guess this doesn't mean shit anymore. Sad, really. It's part of what made our country so noble. Stripping away all of our compassion and tolerance does not a beacon on a hill make.

Ok, so you do not agree with not making any person an immediate citizen of the US simply because they happened to be born on US soil. How does compassion come into this exactly? If a person illegally enters the US breaking immigration laws to have a baby here to bypass naturalization to get instant citizenship for their child and then use that child to stay in the US how does stopping that blatant abuse figure into compassion? What are we being compassionate about? The poor child who does not get instant citizen status? The parent who tried their best breaking the law all along the way, and with full knowledge? This is what we need to be tolerant of? So the beacon says, come here, flaunt our laws and we will grant you citizenship, no questions asked.

Broad strokes are easy, are they not? \

I think this issue is very tough, because on the one hand, I believe that they are constitutionally allowed citizenship just because they are born here. Whatever the intent was, it is worded in such a way as to allow what is happening. Abuse of the system, warts and all. There are those who are here legally, whether on a visa, green card, worker, student etc... If they have a child here, that child becomes a citizen and they now get to stay if they so desire. The adult gets a nearly free pass to residency full time in the US and gets a fast track in to the US. In that instance, I am ambivalent. Is it abuse? Perhaps. But it is legal. Then you have the circumstances I listed above. Not legal, and the results are basically the same. This is where i feel the issue gets sticky. Do you draw the line anywhere on this issue?

For me, i was speaking with a co-worker on this, and he is passionately against "anchor babies" allowing this type of activity. He is the democrat of the office, voted for Obama, pro health care, pro union, voted for Kulongoski here in Oregon. But he was far more "conservative" than I on this issue. My basic take, the constitution states if you are born here you are a citizen. End of line. (Tron references aside.) If you don't like it, change the Constitution. Now there is someone trying to do just that, sort of. To me, this is worth having a dialogue about. To ask the question does not make someone a heartless monster. Right?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #6 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I guess this doesn't mean sh*t anymore. Sad, really. It's part of what made our country so noble. Stripping away all of our compassion and tolerance does not a beacon on a hill make.

Useless rhetorical argument. Engage in the debate on the merits, or go away. But don't start with your mock outrage and boo-hoo tears.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Ok, so you do not agree with not making any person an immediate citizen of the US simply because they happened to be born on US soil. How does compassion come into this exactly? If a person illegally enters the US breaking immigration laws to have a baby here to bypass naturalization to get instant citizenship for their child and then use that child to stay in the US how does stopping that blatant abuse figure into compassion? What are we being compassionate about? The poor child who does not get instant citizen status? The parent who tried their best breaking the law all along the way, and with full knowledge? This is what we need to be tolerant of? So the beacon says, come here, flaunt our laws and we will grant you citizenship, no questions asked.

Agreed.


Broad strokes are easy, are they not? \

I think this issue is very tough, because on the one hand, I believe that they are constitutionally allowed citizenship just because they are born here. Whatever the intent was, it is worded in such a way as to allow what is happening. Abuse of the system, warts and all. There are those who are here legally, whether on a visa, green card, worker, student etc... If they have a child here, that child becomes a citizen and they now get to stay if they so desire. The adult gets a nearly free pass to residency full time in the US and gets a fast track in to the US. In that instance, I am ambivalent. Is it abuse? Perhaps. But it is legal. Then you have the circumstances I listed above. Not legal, and the results are basically the same. This is where i feel the issue gets sticky. Do you draw the line anywhere on this issue?

For me, i was speaking with a co-worker on this, and he is passionately against "anchor babies" allowing this type of activity. He is the democrat of the office, voted for Obama, pro health care, pro union, voted for Kulongoski here in Oregon. But he was far more "conservative" than I on this issue. My basic take, the constitution states if you are born here you are a citizen. End of line. (Tron references aside.) If you don't like it, change the Constitution. Now there is someone trying to do just that, sort of. To me, this is worth having a dialogue about. To ask the question does not make someone a heartless monster. Right?[/QUOTE]

I disagree. The 14th Amendment's intent was to address slaves. It was never intended to address anchor babies. This is something that has become a major problem. Children of illegals are overwhelming our schools, healthcare and social services...even in areas not near the Southern border. We should change the law so that children of illegal immigrants are not automatically citizens. It has nothing to do with no wanting people to immigrate. It has to do with addressing a serious problem.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 9
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Agreed.

I disagree. The 14th Amendment's intent was to address slaves. It was never intended to address anchor babies. This is something that has become a major problem. Children of illegals are overwhelming our schools, healthcare and social services...even in areas not near the Southern border. We should change the law so that children of illegal immigrants are not automatically citizens. It has nothing to do with no wanting people to immigrate. It has to do with addressing a serious problem.

Well, we don't disagree completely as I have an issue with illegal immigrants that do just what you state. Those that are in the country legally and end up having a child are technically covered under the provision, even if that was not the intent originally. Unintended consequence perhaps? Unfortunately it seems that without clarification, everyone may be technically covered, even if they are here illegally trying to game the system.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #9 of 9
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bill to Alter Birthright Citizenship Amendment