Citizenship From Birth

[evli1966 88]

Not that I disagree with the writer of that article but the Supreme Court has all ready gave an opinion on the 14th amendment in other cases.

U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 1898. Opinion that despite parents born in China, since Ark was born in the United States he is a citizen.

In 1982, Plyer v. Doe. Opinion of the Court.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter." What this means is that the 14th amendment does not care about legal status.

I really can't see the Supreme Court reversing two prior opinions nor seeing the Constitution changed. Good luck though. As for me I would rather leave the law the way it is and just tighten the borders. Fix the problem proactively not in a reactionary fashion. If a woman gets in to the U.S. illegally she will have the baby in the U.S. and we will pay for it per EMTALA laws.

I understand what your saying and agree the border must be fixed; we do not agree on the reactionary part there are many illegals which should leave this country they all broke immigration laws some are breaking other criminal codes most are breaking tax laws commiting fraud and ID theft they need to go.

With no birth rights it removes that anchor or temptation. in the future.

[DEDixon 39]

I love it when people jump in the middle of a conversation without following what has transpired. Go back and read what BY said. He referred to Big Dog's story of a woman he knows who has come to the U.S. just to have a child here. Such stories like that are called anecdotal when using them to further an argument. BY is notorious for being persuaded by anecdotal evidence rather than actual statistical data. While I don't agree with Big Dog's argument that perhaps we should change the Birthright Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, I know from his posts that he's well aware that the story he gave was merely anecdotal. I'm not sure BY, however, knows the difference.

steve you are wrong and right. he did talk about what mr. big dog said, but when he was talking about comparing HC with immigration, he wasn't referring to what mr. big dog said. he was purely talking your reference to other country's HC, but ignoring it in the immigration debate. go back and read. i read all of it very carefully before i responded.

[DEDixon 39]

Not that I disagree with the writer of that article but the Supreme Court has all ready gave an opinion on the 14th amendment in other cases.

U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 1898. Opinion that despite parents born in China, since Ark was born in the United States he is a citizen.

In 1982, Plyer v. Doe. Opinion of the Court.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter.” What this means is that the 14th amendment does not care about legal status.

I really can't see the Supreme Court reversing two prior opinions nor seeing the Constitution changed. Good luck though. As for me I would rather leave the law the way it is and just tighten the borders. Fix the problem proactively not in a reactionary fashion. If a woman gets in to the U.S. illegally she will have the baby in the U.S. and we will pay for it per EMTALA laws.

but this isn't only about illegals having anchor babies. this is about inexpensive travel in the age of the jet airplanes. so much has changed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

steve you are wrong and right. he did talk about what mr. big dog said, but when he was talking about comparing HC with immigration, he wasn't referring to what mr. big dog said. he was purely talking your reference to other country's HC, but ignoring it in the immigration debate. go back and read. i read all of it very carefully before i responded.

Well, in that case, you'd have to make a substantive comparison between the immigration policies of say, Canada and the U.S.. I don't know all the intricacies of most other countries' immigration policies, but really, this country was founded by immigrants and was built by immigrants, in spite of what some of the Nativists (that seem to hang around immigration websites like this) try to spin. It's a fallacy to consider immigrants (both legal and illegal) as being detrimental to our economy or our national identity. Anti-immigration groups are capitalizing on the ripe political climate (our sluggish economy and high employment) to peddle their specific agenda, which is to ultimately reduce all immigration, which ironically will hurt our economy.

Edit to add: And the politicians that are peddling these kinds of measures to combat illegal immigration are scapegoating to try and divert American voters ire at their friends on Wall Street that got us into the economic mess in the first place.

Edited August 9, 2010 by El Buscador

[HannahP 119]

I've lived in a US border state all of my life...which is considerably more years than many of 20 and 30-something experts that inhabit VJ. I used to see illegal alien roundups frequently in Houston. I remember seeing a paint and body shop near my house being raided and scores of illegal aliens arrested as far back as the 1960's. I used to drive to and from work offshore down Highway 59 in south Texas in the early 1980's and personally witnessed full INS buses rolling full south with illegal aliens and returning empty rolling north. Now all I see is more and more illegal aliens in Houston. The 1986 amnesty has set the tone and it has been downhill to the toilet tube ever since.

The standards I grew up with have eroded and I don't see any upside in the present climate lunacy that has gripped the immigration debate.

I do know one thing from witnessing it first hand...amnesty is not the solution...it is the problem.

Whoa...does this mean you're, like old?

I thought Bob Dylan said not to trust anyone over thirty?

[evli1966 88]

Well, in that case, you'd have to make a substantive comparison between the immigration policies of say, Canada and the U.S.. I don't know all the intricacies of most other countries' immigration policies, but really, this country was founded by immigrants and was built by immigrants, in spite of what some of the Nativists (that seem to hang around immigration websites like this) try to spin. It's a fallacy to consider immigrants (both legal and illegal) as being detrimental to our economy or our national identity. Anti-immigration groups are capitalizing on the ripe political climate (our sluggish economy and high employment) to peddle their specific agenda, which is to ultimately reduce all immigration, which ironically will hurt our economy.

Steve one of your better responses although I do not agree with it.

Your correct the US was built on Immigration for that matter alot of other countries were as well.

No one is saying stop immigration we are asking for it to be controlled and that illegal immigrants be sent back to their place of origin, also that the borders be secured as they should be to prevent such incursions of illegals.

It is also time to prevent babies of illegals from being naturalized upon birth to reduce the temptation of tryin gto anchor their illegal lives here.

I believe with the right laws legal residents immigrating here to be a US citizens that have children here should be naturalized upon choice given to them. At the same time Illegals could be preented this right.

Whoa...does this mean you're, like old?

I thought Bob Dylan said not to trust anyone over thirty?

He isn't old I am old

[HannahP 119]

He isn't old I am old

My mom's older.

[DEDixon 39]

Well, in that case, you'd have to make a substantive comparison between the immigration policies of say, Canada and the U.S.. I don't know all the intricacies of most other countries' immigration policies, but really, this country was founded by immigrants and was built by immigrants, in spite of what some of the Nativists (that seem to hang around immigration websites like this) try to spin. It's a fallacy to consider immigrants (both legal and illegal) as being detrimental to our economy or our national identity. Anti-immigration groups are capitalizing on the ripe political climate (our sluggish economy and high employment) to peddle their specific agenda, which is to ultimately reduce all immigration, which ironically will hurt our economy.

you are right (i think) that less immigration is bad for the economy (we grow through immigration since americans aren't having enough kids). i don't think a majority of americans want to greatly reduce legal immigration. i do think americans simply want "fair" immigration.

that line about being founded by immigrates is so 1850s.

we won't be able to have a guest worker program as long as guest workers can have a citizen while here. it won't work.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For BY and DEDixon regarding other countries who also have established Jus soli (birthright by soil):

Jus soli is observed in 16% of the world, the United States being the largest practitioner.

States that observe jus soli include:

• Antigua and Barbuda^[3]
• Argentina^[3]
• Barbados^[3]
• Belize^[3]
• Bolivia^[3]
• Brazil^[3]
• Canada^[3]
• Chile^[4] (children of transient foreigners or of foreign diplomats on assignment in Chile only upon request)
• Colombia^[3]
• Dominica^[3]
• Dominican Republic^[3]
• Ecuador^[3]
• El Salvador^[3]
• Fiji^[5]
• Grenada^[3]
• Guatemala^[3]
• Guyana^[3]
• Honduras^[3]
• Jamaica^[3]
• Lesotho^[6]
• Malaysia^[3]
• Mexico^[3]
• Nicaragua^[3]
• Pakistan^[3]
• Panama^[3]
• Paraguay^[3]
• Peru^[3]
• Saint Christopher and Nevis^[3]
• Saint Lucia^[3]
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines^[3]
• Trinidad and Tobago^[3]
• United States^[3]
• Uruguay^[3]
• Venezuela^[3]

Modification of jus soli

In a number of countries, the automatic application of jus soli has been modified to impose some additional requirements for children of foreign parents, such as the parent being a permanent resident or having lived in the country for a period of time. Jus soli has been modified in the following countries:

• United Kingdom on 1 January 1983
• Australia on 20 August 1986^[2]
• Republic of Ireland on 1 January 2005^[2]
• New Zealand on 1 January 2006^[2]
• South Africa on 6 October 1995^[2]
• France also operates a modified form of jus soli

German nationality law was changed on 1 January 2000 to introduce a modified concept of jus soli. Prior to that date, German nationality law was based entirely on jus sanguinis.^[2]

Modification of jus soli has been criticized as contributing to economic inequality, the perpetuation of unfree labour from a helot underclass,^[2] and statelessness.

On the other hand, in places like the United States, jus soli is credited with the nation's ability to integrate various nationalities and with much less social strife and difficulties than other countries^{[citation needed]}. Although jus soli was formally stated in the Fourteenth Amendment, judicial authorities recognize that the philosophy was integral at the conception of the country's constitution.^{[citation needed]}Children born to foreign diplomats are usually not granted nationality of the country they were born in, even in countries that practice jus soli.

Abolition of jus soli

Some countries which formerly operated jus soli have moved to abolish it entirely, only conferring citizenship on children born in the country if one of the parents is a citizen of that country. India did this on 3 December 2004, in reaction to illegal immigration from its Muslim neighbor Bangladesh, though jus soli was progressively weakened since 1987.^[7] Malta also changed the principle of citizen to jus sanguinis on 1 August 1989, in a move that also relaxed restrictions against multiple citizenship.^[8]

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

[DEDixon 39]

For BY and DEDixon regarding other countries who also have established Jus soli (birthright by soil):

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

so you can see that industrialized countries have recently changed. i didn't read about canada, but i bet there is a huge asterisk there.

On the list states that observe jus soli are developing countries so give them time.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

so you can see that industrialized countries have recently changed. i didn't read about canada, but i bet there is a huge asterisk there.

On the list states that observe jus soli are developing countries so give them time.

I'll have to read more on it as I said before I knew little to nothing of what other countries do or have done, but according to that Wiki entry, many of them have modified jus soli rule which, according to critics, has contributed to economic inequality, the perpetuation of unfree labour from a helot underclass, and statelessness. The great thing about jus soli is that it is neutral. It doesn't depend on the government to make that decision, which can get tricky when you start to apply certain conditions. I have yet to read or hear any compelling argument why we need to modify or get rid of jus soli. People want to immigrate to America for myriad of reasons and many of us here petitioned spouses that were at least keen to the idea of becoming a USC at some point, so it honestly baffles me that people who have foreign spouses would be in favor of getting rid of Birthright of Citizenship. Make no mistake, groups like Stormfront have in their minds, to severely limit all forms of immigration. If they had their way, most of us here wouldn't have been able to marry our foreign spouses, let alone have a child born on U.S. soil with one foreign parent.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I'll have to read more on it

[DEDixon 39]

I'll have to read more on it as I said before I knew little to nothing of what other countries do or have done, but according to that Wiki entry, many of them have modified jus soli rule which, according to critics, has contributed to economic inequality, the perpetuation of unfree labour from a helot underclass, and statelessness. The great thing about jus soli is that it is neutral. It doesn't depend on the government to make that decision, which can get tricky when you start to apply certain conditions. I have yet to read or hear any compelling argument why we need to modify or get rid of jus soli. People want to immigrate to America for myriad of reasons and many of us here petitioned spouses that were at least keen to the idea of becoming a USC at some point, so it honestly baffles me that people who have foreign spouses would be in favor of getting rid of Birthright of Citizenship. Make no mistake, groups like Stormfront have in their minds, to severely limit all forms of immigration. If they had their way, most of us here wouldn't have been able to marry our foreign spouses, let alone have a child born on U.S. soil with one foreign parent.

a guest worker program can't exist with jus soli. it would make the program too complicated. you've mentioned complicated in this discuss a few times - guest worker program with jus soli would be extremely complicated. i want a guest worker program for it employs otherwise unemployed people, but it won't work with jus soli.

Birthright of Citizenship.... as americans, with or without a foreign spouse, we have nothing to worry about. i'm surprised you are baffled by this.

there are always going to be extreme groups like stormfront (i don't know of them), however i don't think the average american will allow such a group to represent america.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

a guest worker program can't exist with jus soli. it would make the program too complicated. you've mentioned complicated in this discuss a few times - guest worker program with jus soli would be extremely complicated. i want a guest worker program for it employs otherwise unemployed people, but it won't work with jus soli.

Birthright of Citizenship.... as americans, with or without a foreign spouse, we have nothing to worry about. i'm surprised you are baffled by this.

there are always going to be extreme groups like stormfront (i don't know of them), however i don't think the average american will allow such a group to represent america.

A guest worker program with a legal avenue towards citizenship, which encourages/demands that such immigrants become integrated into society (English literacy, etc.) could work. I used to work with a guy who was Canadian (he was here on an H-1 visa). His wife was a Chinese national. They now have two daughters, both born here in the U.S.. Without jus soli, which country should have given them citizenship? You see how complicated this could get? My friend was planning on getting his citizenship here, but was at the mercy of his employer who sponsored him. It caused him a lot of grief because he'd been working in this country for close a decade and wanted to provide some security for his two little girls.

[Moonandstar 6]

I'll have to read more on it as I said before I knew little to nothing of what other countries do or have done, but according to that Wiki entry, many of them have modified jus soli rule which, according to critics, has contributed to economic inequality, the perpetuation of unfree labour from a helot underclass, and statelessness. The great thing about jus soli is that it is neutral. It doesn't depend on the government to make that decision, which can get tricky when you start to apply certain conditions. I have yet to read or hear any compelling argument why we need to modify or get rid of jus soli. People want to immigrate to America for myriad of reasons and many of us here petitioned spouses that were at least keen to the idea of becoming a USC at some point, so it honestly baffles me that people who have foreign spouses would be in favor of getting rid of Birthright of Citizenship. Make no mistake, groups like Stormfront have in their minds, to severely limit all forms of immigration. If they had their way, most of us here wouldn't have been able to marry our foreign spouses, let alone have a child born on U.S. soil with one foreign parent.

Wow, no one said that the removal of jes soli would mean that a foreign spouse would not be able to have a US child.

Perhaps it would interest you to know that even China gives citizenship to a child as long as one person was a Chinese citizen.

Me, i'm actively against the thought of my wife becoming a US citizen.

As for all these people who act like, since they spent the last 10+ years here, they have no where else to go- they obviously are trying to appeal to the thoughts of weak-minded individuals who have never been to a foreign country longer than a month. They have citizenship of their own country, which will take them back. Founding a new life was 'so easy' for them in the US- the only people that believe it isn't just as easy for A CITIZEN of another country to do so in THEIR OWN country, are idiots.