Birthright Citizenship

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Martin Alonzo, Oct 30, 2018.

  1. Martin Alonzo

    Martin Alonzo Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2015
    Messages:
    3,289
    Likes Received:
    3,150
    #1
    Neville Telen and Yvonne Smith like this.
  2. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Greeter
    Moderator Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    10,601
    Likes Received:
    14,583
    A federal judge in Hawaii is being awakened.
     
    #2
  3. Tex Dennis

    Tex Dennis Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2018
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    338
    sign the thing and DO IT!
     
    #3
    Maggie Mae and Bobby Cole like this.
  4. Martin Alonzo

    Martin Alonzo Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2015
    Messages:
    3,289
    Likes Received:
    3,150
    I think a lot of judges will try and stop it especially the Chinese tourist trade bring in pregnant Chinese to have their babies in the US
     
    #4
  5. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Greeter
    Moderator Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    10,601
    Likes Received:
    14,583
    Lindsay Graham, who apparently likes his new role as a pro-Trump conservative, introduced a bill to end birthright citizenship.
     
    #5
  6. Bobby Cole

    Bobby Cole Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    2,741
    Likes Received:
    4,999
    Yeah, probably.
    But the good news is (I think) that once the executive order has been signed, even if there’s a court battle there should be a “stay” on the citizenship issue until it hits the Supreme Court.
    In other words, a baby born to illegals in the U.S. will not have immediate citizenship and if I am not wrong, the parents will also have to wait for any “rights” that would have been due the child prior to the order.

    The other side of the good news is that once the order has been signed and an unknowing illegal has registered the baby as a citizen, we know where the parents are and where to ship them along with their babe in arms..........
     
    #6
    Frank Sanoica and Martin Alonzo like this.
  7. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Greeter
    Moderator Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    10,601
    Likes Received:
    14,583
    Thus far, the Supreme Court has not weighed in on the question of whether the 14th Amendment means that someone born to an illegal alien who crosses our borders is a citizen. Clearly, it wasn't intended to mean that because it wasn't applied to the children of illegal aliens after its passing. It was intended to ensure that the children of former slaves were citizens.

    The relevant portion reads:

    After it refers to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States," there is a qualifier: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"

    The second part of that sentence wouldn't be there if it were redundant. It is a qualifier, stating that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" must also meet the second qualification before they are assumed citizens. So there is certainly room for argument, particularly given that it wasn't applied to the children of illegal aliens following its enactment. I think we are the only country in the world that still has a law that says that if you can get across our border before delivery, your child is a citizen.

    Either way, Trump was smart to take it on, as was Senator Graham, as that's the side you want to be on coming into an election. Even if he loses on the point, he is shown to be fighting on behalf of American citizens.
     
    #7
  8. Don Alaska

    Don Alaska Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2018
    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    2,440
    Senator Graham has been freed from the onus of John McCain. It is good to see him act like he is actually from South Carolina. I am sure that any attempt at this, whether from the Executive or Legislative Branch, will be decided in the Judicial, probably by the Supreme Court. I can't imagine them not taking it to review when it gets there. Like you said, @Ken Anderson, some district court judge in Hawaii is probably already being dragged out of bed to review it even if it hasn't been passed or implemented yet.
     
    #8
  9. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Greeter
    Moderator Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    10,601
    Likes Received:
    14,583
    From the Congressional record.

    14th.jpg
     
    #9
  10. Bobby Cole

    Bobby Cole Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    2,741
    Likes Received:
    4,999
    Okay, is everyone ready for a whole lot of irony??? I mean, downright close to being absolutely ridiculous
    I-R-O-N-Y ??? !!

    Of all organizations, Planned Parenthood is up in arms about D. Trumps solution to anchor babies.
    An organization which discontinues the rights of a baby by killing it is saying that the president is denying the birthright of a baby born in the U.S. because the parents are illegal.

    Just slap my face and call me spanky if that isn’t the “stupidest” bunch of ..................
     
    #10
  11. Neville Telen

    Neville Telen Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    370
    #11
    Bobby Cole likes this.
  12. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Greeter
    Moderator Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    10,601
    Likes Received:
    14,583
  13. Bobby Cole

    Bobby Cole Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    2,741
    Likes Received:
    4,999
    Birth hotels in S. California and S. Florida are a big hit for creating U.S. citizens.
    The Chinese (California) and Russians (Florida) will spend between 40K-80K just to get to the U.S., rent a room, have the baby and then go back home.
    They pay a handler who teaches them how to lie about their reason for visiting the U.S. and getting the visa, how best to hide the pregnancy and which airports to avoid.
    They’re even instructed where to have the baby so that all the services will be free.

    The baby is automatically a U.S. citizen and not only can enjoy all the rights of an American citizen but also, at the age of 21, sponsor his or her parents (or whoever) for legal immigration to the U.S.

    Do Note: The U.K and France had similar problems at one time and now both countries do deny citizenship to any child born in those countries via visiting foreign parents.

    Note 2: I dislike the Huffington Post but this link seems reasonable enough to reference.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/01/china-us-birth-tourism_n_7187180.html
     
    #13
    Ken Anderson and Don Alaska like this.
  14. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Greeter
    Moderator Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    10,601
    Likes Received:
    14,583
    There is also a clause at the end of the 14th that specifically leaves enforcement in the hands of the Congress, so interpretation should be something left to the Congress, not requiring an amendment.
     
    #14
    Don Alaska and Bobby Cole like this.
  15. Gloria Mitchell

    Gloria Mitchell Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    3,311
    I agree with Trumpy on this one... it may have worked alright back during our ancestors time..but times have changed and this law needs to be abolished.
     
    #15
    Chris Ladewig and Bobby Cole like this.
  16. Nancy Hart

    Nancy Hart Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,194
    Likes Received:
    2,629
    It's possible the 14th Amendment does need to be reconsidered with changing times. I'm not well read enough on the subject to think of all the possible ramifications if it were struck down, so I don't have a firm opinion.

    Suppose a couple, who are not U.S. citizens, has a child, born in the U.S. . If the 14th Amendment were struck down, I presume the child would have the citizenship of one of its parents? . Which parent? . Do the parents get to decide? .

    Does anyone know how this is handled in other countries that don't have this provision?
     
    #16
  17. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Greeter
    Moderator Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    10,601
    Likes Received:
    14,583
    I don't think it would need to be revoked. I think the most obvious answer is in the interpretation. Of course, that will be met with a legal challenge. Another solution could come through Congressional action, as the 14th Amendment leaves it to the Congress to enforce its provisions. That would be a better choice, I think. Of course, if the US were to change either its interpretation or enforcement of the 14th Amendment, it wouldn't affect anyone who had already received citizenship.
     
    #17
    Bobby Cole likes this.
  18. Nancy Hart

    Nancy Hart Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,194
    Likes Received:
    2,629
    Yeah I guess there is more than one way to get the result, and there is more to the 14th amendment than the first clause. So whatever it took, if interpretation only. I'm interested in the birthright part. How it is handled in other countries. According to the administration we are about the only country that has the birthright clause.

    How about Canada? England? Germany? (for example) I think we have some members from those countries.
     
    #18
  19. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Greeter
    Moderator Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    10,601
    Likes Received:
    14,583
    I could be wrong, but I don't think any country other than the United States still has birthright citizenship; I don't know this for a fact, though. It's a crazy idea and we're seeing the craziness of it.
     
    #19
    Don Alaska likes this.
  20. Chrissy Cross

    Chrissy Cross Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2015
    Messages:
    18,300
    Likes Received:
    17,259
    I was born in Argentina and became a citizen ...I always thought I was a dual citizen... I guess not, since it was before 1967 that I became a US citizen.

    My parents weren't Argentine citizens but Hungarian when I was born.
     
    #20
  21. Harry Havens

    Harry Havens Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    536
    You may be all 3. As part of the U.S. naturalization process you must renounce any other citizenship as part of any ceremony. However, that would require the other country to recognize that. Most do not. To renounce a U.S. citizenship, you would have to leave the U.S. and go to a U.S. embassy, even if you renounced U.S. citizenship as part of another country's naturalization process. You can renounce over and over, but the U.S. does not recognize it until you go to a U.S. embassy and fill out the necessary paperwork, etc.

    Not sure how other countries' laws are in regards to renouncing a citizenship.

    What fascinates me about the "executive" order is how it would be implemented. What is the one thing required to get a passport, etc., identifying you as a citizen of the U.S. It is something that is administered by each state... not the federal government. State birth certificates are wildly different. Some do ask for proof of identity and may even ask place of birth of the parents, but not their proof of birthplace.
     
    #21
    Chrissy Cross likes this.
  22. Chrissy Cross

    Chrissy Cross Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2015
    Messages:
    18,300
    Likes Received:
    17,259
    Since I was very young when my parents became US citizens I don’t really remember any of the process
    Only that I think I became a US citizen when they did.
     
    #22
  23. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Greeter
    Moderator Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    10,601
    Likes Received:
    14,583
    As is commonplace these days whenever someone is opposed to something, you seem to be indicating that the law would be worthless unless it is one hundred percent enforceable.

    Yet we have laws against murder despite the fact that these laws are not enforceable, as evidenced by the fact that people are still murdered and the murderers are not always apprehended and convicted. We have laws against theft despite the fact that a large number of thefts are successful, and thieves are not always apprehended and convicted. For God's sake, we even have speed limit laws despite the fact that almost no one drives the speed limit.

    The executive order would be enforced in the same manner that the 14th amendment was enforced up until the 1960s when, contrary to the way in which it was intended, it came to mean that anyone who could manage to cross the border before giving birth was home free. I would imagine that illegals gave birth to children, giving false information to hospital personnel, and some of these were probably able to have these births registered with the state. Others weren't, and some of those who were able to get by were later found out when they were vetted for a government job or, perhaps even when they decided to run for elected office.

    Today, in a time when state databases are connected to federal databases, and every child is issued a social security number at birth, fewer would get through than even fifty years ago.

    Those who cross our border illegally and are apprehended could not use the birth of a baby for the purposes of chain migration. Some would slip through, others wouldn't, but that's the way that every law on the books is enforced.
     
    #23
    Bobby Cole likes this.
  24. Harry Havens

    Harry Havens Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    536
    It is not a law that Trump is suggesting, but rather an executive order. It would apply to the executive branch being enforced, yet the states control birth certificates, unless you are proposing the federal government take more away from the states. Please tell me where this avalanche of new federal support is coming from that can barge into every delivery room in America.

    Ladies... get those passports ready and carry them everywhere you go!!

    Aside from the obvious false equivalency, there are both state and federal laws, along with police forces nationwide, not to mention a wide array of attorneys, forensic specialists, etc.

    Despite the continued insistence that "something' took place in the 60s, I already presented clear indication in another thread that dates to the late 1890s. United States v Wong Kim Ark.

    When children were born in U.S. hospitals, they became U.S. citizens.
     
    #24
    Nancy Hart likes this.
  25. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Greeter
    Moderator Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    10,601
    Likes Received:
    14,583
    Senator Graham is introducing a bill to end birthright citizenship by Congressional action, and if you read the above posts, you'll see that I have said that I would prefer it be done that way, as it would have a more lasting effect. Regardless, an executive order would have the effect of a law, albeit more prone to legal challenge. A for US vs. Wong Kim Ark, their situation was very much like that for which the 14th Amendment was enacted, which was to cover the children of slaves who were brought to the United States to work. As large numbers of Chinese people were brought here as cheap labor during this same time period, I can see why they might have believed that the 14th Amendment applied. The position of the Chinese in the late 1800s and early 1900s was very much like that of the black slaves. They were brought here for cheap (almost slave) labor. The 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to people crossing our borders illegally, such as we are dealing with now. This was made clear in the Congressional record, a portion of which I posted above, and was not used as such until the 1960s.

    Nevertheless, the 14th Amendment clearly leaves enforcement of the Amendment to Congress, and Graham's bill would not require an Amendment.
     
    #25
    Neville Telen likes this.

Share This Page