New High: 65% Oppose Automatic Citizenship for Children Born Here to Illegal Immigrants

[Danno 1,228]

New High: 65% Oppose Automatic Citizenship for Children Born Here to Illegal Immigrants

Friday, November 18, 2011

Voters oppose more strongly than ever granting automatic U.S. citizenship to a child born to an illegal immigrant in this country.

Now, nearly two-out-of-three Likely U.S. Voters (65%) say if a woman enters the United States as an illegal alien and gives birth to a child here, that child should not automatically become a U.S. citizen.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/new_high_65_oppose_automatic_citizenship_for_children_born_here_to_illegal_immigrants

[kali1229 6]

I honestly think this is great; however no matter how much the gov't tried to pass a law negating citizenship to those born here as children of illegal immigrants, they wouldn't. It goes completely against what our forefathers envisioned for this country - it would be unconstitutional.

[Danno 1,228]

I honestly think this is great; however no matter how much the gov't tried to pass a law negating citizenship to those born here as children of illegal immigrants, they wouldn't. It goes completely against what our forefathers envisioned for this country - it would be unconstitutional.

It wasn't our forefathers that started the idea that foreigners passing through or sneaking across our borders would be granted citizenship, that developed much later on.

One look at the preAmble of the Constitution and you can see they tended to have a possesive outlook on exact who those blessing of liberty were intended for.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If it were open to just anyone who sauntered up.... why even include that line?

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

Interestingly, we would need at least 75% of all Americans to be in favor of an Amendment to kill birthright citizenship. The last 10% is the hardest.

[Dakine10 5,452]

It wasn't our forefathers that started the idea that foreigners passing through or sneaking across our borders would be granted citizenship, that developed much later on.

One look at the preAmble of the Constitution and you can see they tended to have a possesive outlook on exact who those blessing of liberty were intended for.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If it were open to just anyone who sauntered up.... why even include that line?

If it was clear what they meant, then we wouldn't have had so much litigation and legal interperation. We would have innately known what they meant.

Unfortunately the constitution, like much of the legal code, is beset with excessive verbiage and repetitve content. They should have given some thought to the problem that that could pose for future generations.

That way, they could have avoided the inclusion of questionable or obscure loquacity and meaningless diction which unnecessarily obscured the resolve conveyed by the original edict and introduced a degree of supposition which was never intended.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

. . . is beset with excessive verbiage and repetitve content . . . . the inclusion of questionable or obscure loquacity and meaningless diction which unnecessarily obscured the resolve conveyed by the original edict and introduced a degree of supposition which was never intended.

Yep.

Clear language.

You da man!

[Dakine10 5,452]

Yep.

Clear language.

You da man!

Good. You saw what I did there. For a minute I thought I typed all that for nothing.

[Leatherneck 693]

The 14th Amendment is very clear, nothing hard about the wording in that Amendment or,

"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.

Jacob M. Howard, the U.S. Senator from Michigan, who served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction

which drafted the 14th Amendment, had this to say during a debate on the first clause of the 14th.

[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.

Judges don't always get it right, the Disrtict Court of California and the SCOTUS certainly blew it with U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark.

Thus we have the mess of foreigners giving birth for the purpose of citizenship.

The SCOTUS usually rights itself after many years, now they need a case before them dealing with this 1998 fiasco.

[Dakine10 5,452]

The 14th Amendment is very clear, nothing hard about the wording in that Amendment or,

"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.

Jacob M. Howard, the U.S. Senator from Michigan, who served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction

which drafted the 14th Amendment, had this to say during a debate on the first clause of the 14th.

[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.

Judges don't always get it right, the Disrtict Court of California and the SCOTUS certainly blew it with U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark.

Thus we have the mess of foreigners giving birth for the purpose of citizenship.

The SCOTUS usually rights itself after many years, now they need a case before them dealing with this 1998 fiasco.

Well sure, if it makes you feel better, you just keep posting that over and over.

The 14th amendment is clear to me as it is written. It is different to you because you are analyzing their intent. I'm not. As I said, they should have written what they meant in a way that wasn't open to interperetation. Then we wouldn't have to debate it.

How hard would it have been to include the line "for a child to be considered a citizen, both parents must be US citizens". It only took me 5 seconds to type it. I'm sure a constitutional scholar could have done it even faster.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I've exploited a few poorly written contracts in the last few years, no matter what the original intent of it was.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Yay! It's Amateur Constitutional Scholar Time on VJ again! I love these.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

How hard would it have been to include the line "for a child to be considered a citizen, both parents must be US citizens". It only took me 5 seconds to type it. I'm sure a constitutional scholar could have done it even faster.

Unfortunately, that wouldn't have covered the intent of the 14th Amendment, declaring even the children of negro slaves to be U.S. citizens, as those who were brought here from Africa were not U.S. citizens themselves, so their children would not have been citizens either. The clear language is actually the one they used: everybody born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of his or her parents. That's where we are today.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Unfortunately, that wouldn't have covered the intent of the 14th Amendment, declaring even the children of negro slaves to be U.S. citizens, as those who were brought here from Africa were not U.S. citizens themselves, so their children would not have been citizens either. The clear language is actually the one they used: everybody born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of his or her parents. That's where we are today.

Perhaps we should give the supreme court some credit for making the right decision.

I also believe that's what the intent was. Others have evidence to the contrary. Whoever is right, I'm not sure it matters.

There is a law in Nevada that you can't ride a camel on the highway. I'm not sure what the intent of that law was. I just know you can't do it.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Dakine10

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

How many oppose US employers hiring illegals to avoid labor laws and pocket $$$$ profit? My guess is .."Even more" Why haven't we implemented mandatory E-verify and enormous tax penalties for hiring illegals? Why hasn't a single politician suggested this? Because it WOULD WORK! The illegals are WANTED (but no one admits it) for political purposes.

These "other problems" would no longer be problems.

The raccoons are raiding the trash cans. We can change our diet so as to put out less attractive trash...or we can CLOSE THE LID! (they already climbed the fence)

If we stop feeding them they will go away!

Edited November 23, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Leatherneck 693]

Unfortunately, that wouldn't have covered the intent of the 14th Amendment, declaring even the children of negro slaves to be U.S. citizens, as those who were brought here from Africa were not U.S. citizens themselves, so their children would not have been citizens either. The clear language is actually the one they used: everybody born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of his or her parents. That's where we are today.

Where is such language used?