Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on April 20, 2010, 12:36:38 PM
-
I know this will never happen, but I wish we could amend the Constitution to say that you are a citizen by birth only if both of your parents are legal citizens at the time of your birth. Would probably help with illegal immigration.
-
Absolutely. Even Ron Paul agrees with this.
-
Why? What's so bad about having more citizens?
-
can we retroactively enact this? That way we can get rid of most of the American population. One could even argue that Europeans illegally came here and took land from the native Americans. Beach are you agreeing that they should be able to kick us all out for being 'illegal' in their eyes?
-
Why? What's so bad about having more citizens?
Its used as a scam to get more benes from the taxpayer.
-
Its used as a scam to get more benes from the taxpayer.
haha 333 with NO proof yet again. It's been proven your beliefs are wrong on most illegals. Your claims are based on racial stereo types you see in 'the bronx' ::)
-
haha 333 with NO proof yet again. It's been proven your beliefs are wrong on most illegals. Your claims are based on racial stereo types you see in 'the bronx' ::)
::) ::)
The vagabonds, nomads, porch sitters, drunks, illegals, and mexis I see in the bronx need a boot in the ass back home.
Most have GF here they get prego and also a wife "back in their country" and stick the taxpayer with the bill.
We need an 'Operation wetback" like Ike had and taking illegals out like patton did asap.
-
can we retroactively enact this? That way we can get rid of most of the American population. One could even argue that Europeans illegally came here and took land from the native Americans. Beach are you agreeing that they should be able to kick us all out for being 'illegal' in their eyes?
Not at all. I'm saying those who are currently here illegally need to go home. And we need to close a loophole being exploited by illegal immigrants.
-
He needs to get his own material. :D
Paul: No citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants
Posted: May 28th, 2010
From CNN's Charles Riley
Washington (CNN) - Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul is once again making waves, this time for saying he opposes citizenship for U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants.
In an interview posted Wednesday on RT.com, a Russian television station that broadcasts in English, Paul said he favors modifying current law.
"We are the only country I know of that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen," Paul said. "And I think that should stop also."
Paul, a Tea Party movement favorite, captured the Kentucky GOP primary last week, defeating establishment candidate Trey Grayson.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees citizenship to individuals born in the United States, but Paul's position is not an unpopular one in Congress.
Legislation referred to as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009, a bill that has 91 co-sponsors, would modify the Immigration and Nationality Act to prevent U.S. citizenship for individuals born to undocumented immigrants.
Paul campaign chairman David Adams confirmed to CNN that Paul stands by his comments.
Paul also suggested that immigration policies favored by Democrats are politically motivated.
"I'm not opposed to letting people come in work and labor in our country, but I think what we should do is, we shouldn't provide an easy route to citizenship. A lot of this is about demographics," Paul said. "If you look at new immigrants from Mexico, they register three to one Democrat. The Democrat Party is for easy citizenship for allowing them to vote."
On his campaign website, Paul explains his position on immigration in terms of incentives and subsidies.
"I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common," Paul says.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/28/paul-no-citizenship-for-children-of-undocumented-immigrants/?fbid=54YJ106g8kS#more-106272
-
When the Europeans migrated here there was no constitution or bill of laws. If the natives wanted Europeans gone they should have kicked their European asses out but they didn't. To try to compare European immigrants from that time to the problem now is like comparing apples and oranges. This stereo type 333 speaks of is true all over the country, I know first hand. Seems like there are more and more slums popping up everytime I cross the country, slowly looking more like mexico. If they like that style of living why dint they stay there? If they want to come here, do it legal and live like Americans?
-
I know this will never happen, but I wish we could amend the Constitution to say that you are a citizen by birth only if both of your parents are legal citizens at the time of your birth. Would probably help with illegal immigration.
Can't happen. It would save the country billions (possibly trillions) of dollars, destroy the infrastructure of aid programs like welfare and gut the democratic party's power base.
-
"I'm not opposed to letting people come in work and labor in our country, but I think what we should do is, we shouldn't provide an easy route to citizenship. A lot of this is about demographics," Paul said. "If you look at new immigrants from Mexico, they register three to one Democrat. The Democrat Party is for easy citizenship for allowing them to vote."
So if the immigrants were registering more as Republicans then it would be ok? This is BS.
As for work and labor maybe the visa and work permits should be re-evaluated especially at a time where unemployment is at an all time high. Encouraging work immigration when you have big unemployment? What is Paul thinking? Again maybe he should listen to his father instead of the mainstream republican positions or whatever he supports.
-
No it wouldnt be ok. I dont care what they register as. But they need to be U.S. citizens first. The people that use illegals for political gain are just as big of problem as the illegals coming in.
-
I know this will never happen, but I wish we could amend the Constitution to say that you are a citizen by birth only if both of your parents are legal citizens at the time of your birth. Would probably help with illegal immigration.
It would, but as you say it won't happen. The answer isn't changing our constitution, its enforcing existing laws.
-
I know this will never happen, but I wish we could amend the Constitution to say that you are a citizen by birth only if both of your parents are legal citizens at the time of your birth. Would probably help with illegal immigration.
how about 1 parent. I could probably agree with that.
-
So if the immigrants were registering more as Republicans then it would be ok? This is BS.
As for work and labor maybe the visa and work permits should be re-evaluated especially at a time where unemployment is at an all time high. Encouraging work immigration when you have big unemployment? What is Paul thinking? Again maybe he should listen to his father instead of the mainstream republican positions or whatever he supports.
It's not difficult to understand what he was saying with that comment. He said the reason why democrats take a conservative/lax stance on immigration is because of the high amount of democratic registration by said immigrants.
-
this is fair on paper, but will never happen. You're going to deport a 17 year old kid who was born here, knows the language, and is ready to attend college?
-
I know this will never happen, but I wish we could amend the Constitution to say that you are a citizen by birth only if both of your parents are legal citizens at the time of your birth. Would probably help with illegal immigration.
thats how it is in Saudi Arabia
-
Lawmakers Consider Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants
Published July 29, 2010 | FoxNews.com
The federal court decision blocking key provisions of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect could light a fire under lawmakers considering an alternative -- and some say radical -- approach to reining in illegal immigration.
Lawmakers since last year have been kicking around a proposal to bar U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens. Such a move, which has been ridiculed by legal scholars, would be a drastic reinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
But those supporting the move say it removes a key incentive luring illegal immigrants over the border. And with Arizona lawmakers now prohibited from requiring police to check immigration status, the option might be back on the table.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News after the Arizona ruling came down that "birthright citizenship" needs to be changed.
"I'm a practical guy, but when you go forward I don't want 20 million more (illegal immigrants) 20 years from now," he said. "Let's have a system that doesn't reward people for cheating."
Though other lawmakers have called for a change in U.S. or state law, Graham said he might introduce a constitutional amendment.
"We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen," he said Wednesday. "They come here to drop a child -- it's called 'drop and leave.' ... That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."
The amendment process is drawn out, and success is almost always unlikely -- it would take a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress as well as ratification by three-fourths of the states. That's 38 states.
Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer and former federal prosecutor, called the push "pie in the sky" no matter how lawmakers go about it. He said any law altering the 14th amendment would never survive a court challenge and questioned the intent.
"It's spiteful," he said. "These are U.S. citizens. ... They're babies that by the grace of God were born in one country instead of another."
He said immigrants are not by and large crossing illegally into the United States just to have children. For starters, he said the parents would have to wait 21 years before their children could sponsor them for legal residency.
Wildes, former mayor of Englewood, N.J., said changing the citizenship ground rules would fundamentally alter the foundation of the United States. It is a rarity for a country to offer citizenship to anyone just because they're born on that country's soil -- but that principle has shaped the U.S. population.
"America has always been a beacon to the immigrants," Wildes said. "As a result of that, we have made ourselves the greatest superpower in the world."
Children of immigrants include droves of accomplished Americans, including former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, born in Kentucky to Jewish immigrants from Europe; actor/dancer/singer Fred Astaire, born to an American mother and Austrian father; singer Christina Aguilera, whose father was born in Ecuador; and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, born to Italian immigrants -- not to mention President Obama, whose father is from Kenya.
Those looking to fiddle with the 14th Amendment, though, aren't looking to go after children of legal immigrants.
A bill introduced in April 2009 by former Georgia Rep. Nathan Deal called for the law to be changed so that "birthright citizenship" as prescribed in the 14th Amendment only applies if one of the child's parents is a U.S. citizen or national, or a legal immigrant.
That bill has languished in the House since last year, though it currently lists 92 co-sponsors.
Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce told Fox News last month that he was working with some of the co-sponsors, as he considered a similar bill at the state level in Arizona. Pearce was behind the Arizona law that was partially struck down by the court Wednesday.
Pearce contends that the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, was intended to protect African Americans.
"Illegal wasn't illegal then," he said. "If you think about it, it's illegal to enter the United States, illegal to remain here, but you get the greatest inducement you could possibly have -- the citizenship of your child. ... It was never intended to do that."
A spokesman for Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, one of the co-sponsors, said he wouldn't be surprised if the bill started to kick back up "in the wake of Arizona."
Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Graham, said the senator is currently "discussing the issue" but would not say what route he would take.
"It is something he is very interested in pursuing further," Bishop said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/29/lawmakers-consider-ending-citizenship-children-illegal-immigrants/
-
This should be a big priority to any true republicans.
-
The Bruce Springsteen song, (although I don't much care for rock and roll) "Born in the USA" is more than a song title. It involves concepts that are important to many citizens...no I would not change the constitution in this respect...
-
So if the immigrants were registering more as Republicans then it would be ok? This is BS.
As for work and labor maybe the visa and work permits should be re-evaluated especially at a time where unemployment is at an all time high. Encouraging work immigration when you have big unemployment? What is Paul thinking? Again maybe he should listen to his father instead of the mainstream republican positions or whatever he supports.
How you concluded he was saying it would be ok if they were republicans from what he said is beyond any logical reasoning. It's clear he stated the reason the Democratic party is "easy" on illegal immigration, which is true, is because most illegals register 3:1 Democratic. Obviously if you have that kind of ratio committing to your party you are going to be "easier" on the issue at hand.
Your second statement shows again, you should re-read what was said instead of jumping to some wild and obviously biased opinion.
As far as the issue in discussion, I would personally be happy with just making it so at least one parent is a legal citizen, which I think would have a higher chance of successfully making it through congress. The decisions made during this very critical time are going to have ramifications and will ultimately affect the direction of this country. Quite interesting times for America.
-
Top Republicans Push to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
Published August 03, 2010 | Associated Press
Aug 3: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., talks to the media on Capitol Hill in Washington after the Republican Party luncheon.
WASHINGTON -- Leading Republicans are joining a push to reconsider the constitutional amendment that grants automatic citizenship to people born in the United States.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Tuesday he supports holding hearings on the 14th Amendment right, although he emphasized that Washington's immigration focus should remain on border security.
His comments came as other Republicans in recent days have questioned or challenged birthright citizenship, embracing a cause that had largely been confined to the far right.
The senators include Arizona's John McCain, the party's 2008 presidential nominee; Arizona's Jon Kyl, the Republicans' second-ranking senator; Alabama's Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading negotiator on immigration legislation.
"I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen," Sessions said.
Legal experts say repealing the citizenship right can be done only through constitutional amendment, which would require approval by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of Congress and by three-fourths of the states. Legislation to amend the right, introduced previously in the House, has stalled.
The proposals are sure to appeal to conservative voters as immigration so far is playing a central role in November's elections. They also could carry risks by alienating Hispanic voters and alarming moderates who could view constitutional challenges as extreme. Hispanics have become the largest minority group in the United States, and many are highly driven by the illegal immigrant debate.
McConnell and McCain seemed to recognize the risk by offering guarded statements Tuesday.
McCain, who faces a challenge from the right in his re-election bid, said he supports reviewing citizenship rights. He emphasized, however, that amending the Constitution is a serious matter.
"I believe that the Constitution is a strong, complete and carefully crafted document that has successfully governed our nation for centuries and any proposal to amend the Constitution should receive extensive and thoughtful consideration," he said.
At a news conference, McConnell refused to endorse Graham's suggestion that citizenship rights be repealed for children of illegal immigrants. While refusing to take questions, he suggested instead that he would look narrowly into reports of businesses that help immigrants arrange to have babies in the United States in order to win their children U.S. citizenship.
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," including recently freed slaves.
Defenders of the amendment say altering it would weaken a fundamental American value while doing little to deter illegal immigration. They also say it would create bureaucratic hardships for parents giving birth.
Quoting a newspaper columnist, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Republicans were "either taking leave of their senses or their principles" in advocating repeal.
An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. as of January 2009, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/03/republicans-push-reconsider-birthright-citizenship/
-
wow what a surprise Mc Cain supporting this... ::) . Weren't the republicans screaming their heads off "bring back the constitution" and all kinds of stuff like not to long ago....hhhmmmmm maybe I'm just losing my mind. :)
-
Its used as a scam to get more benes from the taxpayer.
Wouldn't it be easier and much better to just end those benefits for everyone? Aren't you against Socialism?
-
Wouldn't it be easier and much better to just end those benefits for everyone? Aren't you against Socialism?
ha ha. I would have work farms, food depots, and almost chain gangs for people on public assitance.
-
He needs to get his own material. :D
Paul: No citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants
Posted: May 28th, 2010
From CNN's Charles Riley
Washington (CNN) - Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul is once again making waves, this time for saying he opposes citizenship for U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants.
In an interview posted Wednesday on RT.com, a Russian television station that broadcasts in English, Paul said he favors modifying current law.
"We are the only country I know of that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen," Paul said. "And I think that should stop also."
Paul, a Tea Party movement favorite, captured the Kentucky GOP primary last week, defeating establishment candidate Trey Grayson.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees citizenship to individuals born in the United States, but Paul's position is not an unpopular one in Congress.
Legislation referred to as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009, a bill that has 91 co-sponsors, would modify the Immigration and Nationality Act to prevent U.S. citizenship for individuals born to undocumented immigrants.
Paul campaign chairman David Adams confirmed to CNN that Paul stands by his comments.
Paul also suggested that immigration policies favored by Democrats are politically motivated.
"I'm not opposed to letting people come in work and labor in our country, but I think what we should do is, we shouldn't provide an easy route to citizenship. A lot of this is about demographics," Paul said. "If you look at new immigrants from Mexico, they register three to one Democrat. The Democrat Party is for easy citizenship for allowing them to vote."
On his campaign website, Paul explains his position on immigration in terms of incentives and subsidies.
"I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common," Paul says.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/28/paul-no-citizenship-for-children-of-undocumented-immigrants/?fbid=54YJ106g8kS#more-106272
I like Ron Paul, but isn't he always rambling about going back to the Constitution and following the Constitution? Now he wants to amend the Constitution? What?
-
I like Ron Paul, but isn't he always rambling about going back to the Constitution and following the Constitution? Now he wants to amend the Constitution? What?
Nothing inconsistent there. This is one thing that needs to be amended.
-
Nothing inconsistent there. This is one thing that needs to be amended.
What problem will this fix and is there no other way to fix it?
-
What problem will this fix and is there no other way to fix it?
It would eliminate "anchor babies." It would deter those who come across the border solely to get pregnant, making deportation more difficult. It should reduce government assistance/welfare.
Not sure if there is another way to stop this kind of thing. I wonder if we're the only country in the world that grants citizenship like this?
-
It would eliminate "anchor babies." It would deter those who come across the border solely to get pregnant, making deportation more difficult. It should reduce government assistance/welfare.
Not sure if there is another way to stop this kind of thing. I wonder if we're the only country in the world that grants citizenship like this?
Get rid of welfare. If they have no reason to stay, they'll go back and take their babies with them. Welfare is a huge problem in the US with or without illegal immigration anyway. Kill two birds with one stone.
No, the United States is not the only country in the world granting birthright citizenship.
Nations Granting Birthright Citizenship
The United States is just one of many nations that offers the unconditional citizenship of children born within its borders. The following is a list of nation's that also grant Birthright Citizenship:
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Argentina
* Azerbaijan
* Barbados
* Belize
* Bolivia
* Brazil
* Dominica
* Dominican Republic
* Ecuador
* El Salvador
* Fiji
* Grenada
* Guatemala
* Guyana
* Honduras
* Jamaica
* Lesotho
* Mexico
* Nicaragua
* Pakistan
* Panama
* Paraguay
* Peru
* Saint Christopher and Nevis
* Saint Lucia
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
* Trinidad and Tobago
* Uruguay
* Venezuela
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html
-
Get rid of welfare. If they have no reason to stay, they'll go back and take their babies with them. Welfare is a huge problem in the US with or without illegal immigration anyway. Kill two birds with one stone.
No, the United States is not the only country in the world granting birthright citizenship.
Nations Granting Birthright Citizenship
The United States is just one of many nations that offers the unconditional citizenship of children born within its borders. The following is a list of nation's that also grant Birthright Citizenship:
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Argentina
* Azerbaijan
* Barbados
* Belize
* Bolivia
* Brazil
* Dominica
* Dominican Republic
* Ecuador
* El Salvador
* Fiji
* Grenada
* Guatemala
* Guyana
* Honduras
* Jamaica
* Lesotho
* Mexico
* Nicaragua
* Pakistan
* Panama
* Paraguay
* Peru
* Saint Christopher and Nevis
* Saint Lucia
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
* Trinidad and Tobago
* Uruguay
* Venezuela
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html
Welfare isn't going away. The fact we give any kind of benefits to illegals is just wrong.
Thanks for the info. From the link:
NOTES:
NO European nations grant Birthright Citizenship
No developed nations other than the United States grant Birthright Citizenship
Historically used to grow a nation's population, NO nation, other than the United States, has more than 200 million people, and every nation has fewer than 50 million except the United States, Pakistan, Brazil and Mexico
-
Welfare isn't going away. The fact we give any kind of benefits to illegals is just wrong.
Thanks for the info. From the link:
NOTES:
NO European nations grant Birthright Citizenship
No developed nations other than the United States grant Birthright Citizenship
Historically used to grow a nation's population, NO nation, other than the United States, has more than 200 million people, and every nation has fewer than 50 million except the United States, Pakistan, Brazil and Mexico
Why is Welfare not going away? Do you think the constitution will be amended?
-
Why is Welfare not going away? Do you think the constitution will be amended?
I think most people favor some sort of safety net. I do. It's abuse that many people have a problem with.
No, I seriously doubt the Constitution will be amended. It's too difficult. Good message board material though. :)
-
Boehner: End to Birthright Citizenship 'Worth Considering'
Published August 08, 2010 | FoxNews.com
In this June 10 photo, House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio speaks to reporters outside the White House. (AP Photo)
House Minority Leader John Boehner on Sunday said he's open to talks on changing the U.S. Constitution -- or at least the way it's interpreted -- so that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are not automatically U.S. citizens.
"I think it's worth considering," Boehner said.
The top House Republican joined Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in calling for further study of the idea -- something that has been endorsed by prominent Republicans over the past few weeks. Though the call is already running into stiff opposition and faces extremely long odds of ever succeeding, some lawmakers say it would be a way to minimize the incentive for illegal immigration.
"There is a problem. To provide an incentive for illegal immigrants to come here so that their children can be U.S. citizens does, in fact, draw more people to our country," Boehner said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I do think that it's time for us to secure our borders and enforce the law and allow this conversation about the 14th Amendment to continue."
He continued: "In certain parts of our country, clearly our schools, our hospitals are being overrun by illegal immigrants -- a lot of whom came here just so their children could become U.S. citizens."
Critics of the push to change what is commonly referred to as birthright citizenship say the claims are overblown. Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer, told FoxNews.com last month that immigrants do not generally come to the United States to have children -- granted, it's a benefit for the child, but the parents would realize no material gain until their children reach 21 years old and can sponsor their parents for legal residency. Wildes dismissed any chance of the move succeeding.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has also ridiculed the idea.
A bill was introduced in April 2009 that called for the law to be changed so "birthright citizenship" as prescribed in the 14th Amendment only applies if one of the child's parents is a U.S. citizen or national, or a legal immigrant -- but that bill has stalled. If lawmakers tried to change the Constitution itself, it would take a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress as well as ratification by three-fourths of the states.
However, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., broached the topic last month after a federal judge blocked key provisions in Arizona's illegal immigration law. He said birthright citizenship "attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."
Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., John McCain, R-Ariz., and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., have all joined Graham in saying the idea should at least be considered.
The United States is one of the few countries that grants citizenship based on birth inside the country.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/08/boehner-end-birthright-citizenship-worth-considering/
-
Huckabee: Don't Amend the 14th Amendment
Friday, 13 Aug 2010
Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says he is against changing the 14th Amendment to defeat birthright citizenship, according to a report by Politico.com.
“The Supreme Court has decided that, I think, in three different centuries,” Huckabee said to NPR. “In every single instance, they have affirmed that if you are born in this country, you are considered to be a citizen. The only option there is to change the Constitution.”
Is the former Arkansas governor for such a change? "No," he says directly.
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and other GOP leaders have said they support holding hearings on birthright citizenship.
To read the full story, Go Here Now.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Huckabee--Amend--14th--Amendment/2010/08/13/id/367387
-
White House: 14th Amendment change 'just wrong'
Posted: August 13th, 2010
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
(CNN) - The White House is weighing in on the recent call from some top Republicans to change a potion of the constitution that grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in the United States, calling the suggestion "just wrong."
"I am surprised, to say the least, that discussion is being had about amending the United States Constitution before we even get to the table on amending the statutes that actually carry out immigration policy," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told reporters Friday. "I think that's where the action needs to be. And any talk of amending the Constitution is just wrong."
Napolitano's comments come in response to suggestions from several leading GOP senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, 2008 presidential nominee John McCain, and Lindsay Graham that the part of the 14th Amendment which allows for birthright citizenship should be studied more closely.
"I'm looking at the laws that exist and see if it makes sense today," Graham said on Fox News last week. "You've got the other problem, where thousands of people are coming across the Arizona/Texas border for the express purpose of having a child in an American hospital so that child will become an American citizen, and they broke the law to get there."
McConnell and McCain have both called for congressional hearings into the subject.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs also made clear Friday President Obama is against any moves to alter the provision.
"The president and Secretary Napolitano agree on this," said Gibbs. "The 14th Amendment enshrines - and has for more than 150 years - equal protection and due process, two things that we don't think need to be tampered with."
"It is always interesting…that those that have, with steadfast fidelity, talked about not tampering with our Constitution, have now swerved to pick the 14th Amendment as the best place to address comprehensive immigration reform," added Gibbs. "It is - it's rich in its irony."
The Reconstruction-era 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of law and defines who is a U.S. citizen. Critics of illegal immigration have long accused migrants – particularly those coming from Mexico or Latin American countries – of giving birth to children in the United States in hopes that their babies' citizenship will keep them in the country as well as to avail their children of the more generous benefits of the wealthier United States.
The amendment has been cited as the foundation of U.S. civil rights law in cases ranging from Brown v. Board of Education to last week's decision that struck down a ban on same-sex marriage in California. Changing it would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and the approval of three-quarters of state legislatures.
According to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll out Wednesday, 49 percent of Americans are in favor of changing the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment while 51 percent oppose doing so.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/13/white-house-14th-amendment-change-just-wrong/#more-117803
-
I listened to a discussion last night where an Arizona state senator said the number of births is double what this study says. Some staggering figures.
Births to Illegal Immigrants Are Studied
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: August 11, 2010
Because they were born in this country, the babies of illegal immigrants are United States citizens. In all in 2008, four million children who were American citizens had at least one parent who was in the country illegally, the Pew study found.
Children of illegal immigrants make up 7 percent of all people in the country younger than 18 years old, according to the study, which is based on March 2009 census figures, the most recent data on immigrant families. Nearly four out of five of those children — 79 percent — are American citizens because they were born here.
About 85 percent of the parents who are illegal immigrants are Hispanic, the Pew Center said.
The study comes as lawmakers in Washington have been debating whether to consider changing the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. The controversy began after Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in July that he might offer an amendment to revoke birthright citizenship for the American-born children of illegal immigrants.
Mr. Graham’s comments touched a nerve with many Americans, who called in to talk shows to question whether the children of immigrants who have violated the law by remaining in the United States should be granted citizenship. But it was less clear that there was strong support for altering the Constitution to address the problem.
A nationwide survey in June by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, a group affiliated with the Hispanic Center, found that 56 percent of those polled opposed changing the 14th Amendment, while 41 percent supported it.
The study by the Pew Hispanic Center casts light on an issue raised by Mr. Graham that prompted the current debate. In an interview with Fox News last month, he said that many illegal immigrants were crossing the border to have babies in this country to gain citizenship for their children. “They come here to drop a child,” Mr. Graham said.
The Pew figures show that most illegal immigrant mothers did not arrive recently.
More than 80 percent of mothers in the country illegally had been here for more than a year, the figures show, and more than half had been in the country for five years or more, said Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center and the co-author of the study, along with Paul Taylor, the center’s director.
“The combination of the growing undocumented population through 2007, with more staying in the country longer, creates a situation where we have seen increasing numbers of these births over the last six or seven years,” Mr. Passel said. “Because the immigrants are staying here, this is a young population, and they get married and form families.”
Some researchers noted that the Pew figures did not identify families where both parents were illegal immigrants. “If anything, the Pew report highlights how complicated this issue is, given that so many unauthorized immigrants live in families that include U.S. citizens and legal immigrants,” said Michele Waslin, senior policy analyst for the Immigration Policy Center, a group that supports legalization for illegal immigrants.
Republican leaders and conservatives have been divided over Mr. Graham’s proposal for a constitutional amendment.
“What the Pew estimate underlines is that this is a big problem,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a research group that advocates reduced immigration. “It really is a subversion of national independence for people who break into your country then to demand that their kids be U.S. citizens.”
But Mr. Krikorian does not favor an immediate effort to amend the Constitution’s citizenship clause. He said he wanted to see tougher enforcement to reduce the number of illegal immigrants.
“The point is to shrink the illegal population and prevent new illegals from coming in,” he said, “before it’s appropriate to have the constitutional debate.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/us/12babies.html
-
McCain Says He Doesn't Back 14th Amendment Change
Friday, 13 Aug 2010
Sen. John McCain says he does not support changing the Constitution to end automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants.
The Republican Arizona senator told The Associated Press that despite the current flurry of news stories on the topic and a statement he made last week that was widely interpreted as saying he supported hearings on the matter, he remains unconvinced that such a change is needed.
Instead, he argued that fully securing the border would "dramatically reduce" the problem.
McCain says he's not calling for hearings on the matter, but will listen to a debate if one is held. But he says he is fundamentally in favor of leaving the Constitution as it is.
McCain is facing a tough campaign against former U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth ahead of Arizona's Aug. 24 primary.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/US-Birthright-Citizenship-McCain/2010/08/13/id/367456
-
Most in US Oppose Citizenship for Illegals' Kids
Friday, 13 Aug 2010
Most Americans still oppose granting U.S. citizenship automatically to children born in America to illegal immigrants.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of U.S. Adults finds that 58% oppose automatic citizenship for a child born in this country to an illegal immigrant. That number has not changed since early June. A third of adults (34%) believe those children should become U.S. citizens.
Sentiments are basically unchanged from four years ago when the Senate was considering the immigration issue. The Senate was eventually forced to drop its plans and surrender to public opinion on the topic.
But 64% now believe illegal immigrants' children who serve two years in the U.S. military should be granted citizenship. One-in-four adults (25%) say those children should not be granted citizenship.
These numbers show slightly stronger support than results found in October 2007.
Voters have said consistently for years that when it comes to immigration reform, gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States.
The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on August 10-11, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
In Arizona, where legislators recently passed a strict immigration enforcement law and are considering a law refusing to give birth certificates to children born to illegal immigrants in the state, 64% agree that those children should not automatically become U.S. citizens.
Only 28% of adults believe illegal immigrants' children who finish two years of college in the United States should be granted citizenship. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree with that practice, while another 16% are not sure.
In fact, 63% of adults believe granting citizenship to the children of illegals who attend two years of college would encourage more people to enter the country illegally. Only 23% disagree with that view, and 14% more are not sure.
Americans are more evenly divided when it comes to the impact of granting citizenship to those who provide military service. While 41% say legalizing those children of illegal aliens who serve two years in the military would encourage more illegal immigration, 41% disagree. Eighteen percent (18%) are undecided.
Women are slightly more supportive than men of granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. Both men and women are equally supportive of allowing those children who serve in the U.S. military to be citizens.
Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major political party strongly oppose giving automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, while Democrats are evenly divided. Still, a majority of adults from all party affiliations support citizenship for those who provide military service.
Most voters believe that the availability of government money and services draws illegal immigrants to the United States.
Fifty-four percent (54%) say the Justice Department should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants. But 56% disagree with the Justice Department's decision to challenge Arizona's new law in federal court.
Despite a judge’s ruling putting key provisions of Arizona’s law on hold, most voters still favor passage of such a law in their own state.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Citizenship-Illegals-children--poll/2010/08/13/id/367435
-
Lawmakers in 14 States Craft Bill to Deny Citizenship to 'Anchor Babies'
Published October 19, 2010 | Associated Press
PHOENIX -- Lawmakers in at least 14 states announced Tuesday they are working on legislation to deny U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, although they weren't specific about how they plan to do it.
Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce said he and the lawmakers have a working draft of their model legislation and have consulted constitutional scholars to change the 14th Amendment and deny automatic citizenship.
"This is a battle of epic proportions," Pearce said Tuesday during a news conference at the Arizona Capitol. "We've allowed the hijacking of the 14th Amendment."
Pearce declined to say how the legislation will differ from similar measures that have been introduced in each two-year congressional session since 2005. None of them made it out of committee.
He and another Arizona lawmaker did argue that wording in the amendment that guarantees citizenship to people born in the U.S. who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants because such families don't owe sole allegiance to the U.S.
The efforts by Pearce and the other lawmakers come amid calls to change the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Supporters cite costs to taxpayers for services provided to illegal immigrants and their children.
Constitutional changes require approval by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of Congress, an impossibility now because Democrats have the majority in both houses and most oppose such a measure. Even if Republicans gain power in November and legislation is passed, an amendment would still need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Paul Bender, a constitutional law professor at Arizona State University, said if the lawmakers focus their argument on the "subject to jurisdiction" wording, they won't get very far because the founders only meant it to apply to the children of foreign diplomats born in the U.S.
"If the British ambassador and his wife have a child in the U.S., that child is not a citizen because he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. We cannot put him in jail, we cannot even give him a parking ticket," Bender said.
The 14th Amendment "could have easily have said you're a citizen if you owe your allegiance, but our Constitution doesn't say that," he said. "It says if you're born here, and you're not a diplomat's child, then you become a citizen, and that's the way its been for 100 years."
Carlos Galindo-Elvira, vice president of Valle del Sol, a Phoenix group that provides social services to community members and advocates for immigrants, said Pearce's interpretation of the amendment is an effort to "legitimize bullying babies."
He also questioned why lawmakers would focus on this issue rather than the country's economic woes and high unemployment rate. "All it does is split the country," he said.
Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, the founder of a national group of legislators critical of illegal immigration, said the 14th Amendment "greatly incentives foreign invaders to violate our border and our laws." He had a news conference Tuesday in Harrisburg, Pa., on the multistate endeavor.
The effort could run afoul of the language in the 14th Amendment and lead to a court battle over the constitutionality of the law. But Metcalfe said providing birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is an "ongoing distortion and twisting" of the amendment.
Metcalfe's office said lawmakers in at least 12 other states besides Arizona and Pennsylvania said they were making their own announcements about working on the citizenship legislation. Those other states: Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah.
Pearce was the main sponsor of a tough new Arizona law that would require police enforcing other laws to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the U.S. illegally. It was to go into effect this summer, but a judge put on hold key provisions pending the resolution of a legal challenge.
Pearce also was the chief sponsor of a 2007 state law targeting employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the 2010 law and who is championing the state's legal defense of it against a court challenge mounted by the U.S. Justice Department, was noncommittal when asked whether lawmakers should approve legislation on citizenship.
However, Brewer said she was "always concerned" by the possibility of involving the state in a court fight. "No one wants to be in court. No one wants to be fighting the federal government," she said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/19/lawmakers-states-craft-deny-citizenship-anchor-babies/
-
wow.... Fox News and Newsmax...what a surprise.. ::)
-
::)
-
Nothing will get done so long as Obama is president, but should be another 2012 issue.
'Anchor Baby' Constitutional Amendment to Face Scrutiny in Congress
Published December 26, 2010
Associated Press
Dec. 18, 2010: College student Jorge Herrera, 18, an illegal immigrant, rallies with students and Dream Act supporters in Los Angeles. Legislation is expected in the new Congress that would target not only children brought to the U.S. by illegal immigrants but children of illegals born here.
WASHINGTON -- The end of the year means a turnover of House control from Democratic to Republican and, with it, Congress' approach to immigration.
In a matter of weeks, Congress will go from trying to help young, illegal immigrants become legal to debating whether children born to parents who are in the country illegally should continue to enjoy automatic U.S. citizenship.
Such a hardened approach -- and the rhetoric certain to accompany it -- should resonate with the GOP faithful who helped swing the House in Republicans' favor. But it also could further hurt the GOP in its endeavor to grab a large enough share of the growing Latino vote to win the White House and the Senate majority in 2012.
Legislation to test interpretations of the 14th Amendment as granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants will emerge early next session. That is likely to be followed by attempts to force employers to use a still-developing web system, dubbed E-Verify, to check that all of their employees are in the U.S. legally.
There could be proposed curbs on federal spending in cities that don't do enough to identify people who are in the country illegally and attempts to reduce the numbers of legal immigrants.
Democrats ended the year failing for a second time to win passage of the Dream Act, which would have given hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants a chance at legal status. House Republicans will try to fill the immigration reform vacuum left by Democrats with legislation designed to send illegal immigrants packing and deter others from trying to come to the U.S.
Democrats, who will still control the Senate, will be playing defense against harsh immigration enforcement measures, mindful of their need to keep on good footing with Hispanic voters. But a slimmer majority and an eye on 2012 may prevent Senate Democrats from bringing to the floor any sweeping immigration bill, or even a limited one that hints at providing legal status to people in the country illegally.
President Barack Obama could be a wild card.
He'll have at his disposal his veto power should a bill denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants make it to his desk. But Obama also has made cracking down on employers a key part of his administration's immigration enforcement tactics.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/26/anchor-baby-constitutional-amendment-face-scrutiny-congress/?test=latestnews
-
They should be called " anchor bombs " if anything.
-
:)
House Republicans Introduce Bill to Repeal Birthright Citizenship Amendment
Published January 06, 2011
FoxNews.com
Jan. 6, 2011: Republican Iowa Rep. Steve King, left, with Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich. testifies before the House Rules Committee.
Four Republican lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday that would end automatic granting of American citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal immigrants, arguing "birthright citizenship" is an incentive for illegals to race for the U.S. border.
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.
"Passage of this bill will ensure that immigration law breakers are not rewarded, will close the door to future waves of extended family chain migration, and will help to bring an end to the global 'birth tourism' industry," King said.
Miller added that granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants "rewards those that have recklessly broken our nation's immigration laws, and costs American taxpayers billions annually."
The move by the U.S. representatives coincides with legislation being introduced in several states aimed at finding a way to challenge birthright citizenship as well as crack down on illegals through other measures.
But civil liberties advocates say punishing the child for the sins of the parent does nothing to address illegal immigration, and critics of the Republican effort call it impractical, immoral and inflammatory.
"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."
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.
Several state lawmakers operating under the group State Legislators for Legal Immigration met in Washington this week to discuss a legal challenge that would force the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on whether the 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal residents.
The lawmakers want states to adopt a bill that would bestow state citizenship on people who meet the state's definition of a U.S. citizen and are state residents. They also want states to agree to a compact that defines who is eligible for U.S. citizenship.
The lawmakers say Congress must approve the compact but it does not require the president's signature.
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.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/06/house-republicans-introduce-repeal-birthright-citizenship-amendment/
-
Is the next immigration fight over 'anchor babies'?
By Ed Hornick, CNN
April 28, 2011
Washington (CNN) -- While the nation's political dialogue was hijacked over the issue of President Obama's birthplace, bubbling below the surface is the fact that a child of illegal immigrants born in the United States -- derided by some as "anchor babies" -- could one day be president.
Under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "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."
So under the law, children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil are automatically granted citizenship. It's a point backed up by the U.S. State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. However, some critics, such as U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, have questioned whether those children are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.
Stoking the larger debate is the fact that under the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, those children may sponsor other family members for entry into the U.S. when they reach age 21.
Critics say they, in turn, anchor family members outside the U.S. on American soil, creating an end-run for illegal immigration.
The issue is not a new one. In 1993, Sen. Harry Reid, who is now the Senate majority leader, blasted the rise in what amounts to legal illegal immigration because of the stress it places on the system.
"If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that's a lot of services," he said.
That position has been recently taken up by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, among others in Congress.
And state governments are taking matters into their own hands.
In February, Arizona state Sen. Ron Gould, a Republican, pushed for a bill that would ban U.S. citizenship for these babies. The proposal was later rejected.
I think most of the legal and constitutional scholars who have spoken on the issue have said the Constitution is clear on the issue of citizenship.
--Clarissa Martinez de Castro, National Council of La Raza
In January, a group known as the State Legislators for Legal Immigration proposed a legislative "fix" to prevent these babies from being citizens. The coalition of lawmakers from 40 states says the 14th Amendment has been wrongly applied to those born purposefully on U.S. soil to gain American citizenship.
The National Council of La Raza, the largest national Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., is lashing out against recent attempts in several states to change the 14th Amendment because of anchor babies.
And the group has the backing of the American public, according to a 2010 nationwide poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. A majority of Americans -- 56% -- opposed changing the 14th Amendment; 41% favored changing it.
Clarissa Martinez de Castro, director of immigration and national campaigns for the National Council of La Raza, says opponents want to take their cause all the way to the Supreme Court.
"Even the state legislators who announced they were trying to push this measure and tinkering with the 14th Amendment acknowledge that what they're seeking is a lawsuit and to take this to the court," she said. "I think most of the legal and constitutional scholars who have spoken on the issue have said the Constitution is clear on the issue of citizenship."
Martinez de Castro said that if advocates want to change the nation's immigration policy, they should fix it rather than tinker with the Constitution.
Jon Feere, a policy expert with the nonpartisan Center for Immigration, agrees.
Feere said that even if the wording of the amendment is changed so children born to illegal immigrants are not granted U.S. citizenship, "you're still going to end up with illegal immigration and illegal immigrants having children in the U.S."
"The result of that is we have an influx of illegal immigration," he said. "So I think a lot of people feel that our immigration and citizenship system is controlled by immigrants rather than citizens, because when you think about it -- 'Who is a U.S. citizen? What will our future look like?' -- The (babies) are the ones who decide."
The American Resistance organization says "the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently freed slaves."
The group, which describes itself as "a coalition of immigration crime fighters opposing illegal and undocumented immigration," said that the intent of the amendment "was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense."
According to a Pew Hispanic Center study released in late 2010, 79% of the 5.1 million children of unauthorized immigrants were born in the U.S.
Almost one of four children born in the U.S. in 2008 had parents who were immigrants, the study also found. Of those, 16% of the parents were legal immigrants and 8% were in the U.S. without proper documentation.
In addition, more than three-fourths of all unauthorized immigrants in the United States in March 2009 were Latinos, the study said. And nearly one of every four children under age 18 in the nation was Hispanic. That trend is likely to continue, the study found.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/28/anchor.baby/index.html?hpt=C2
-
An amazing list of shithole countries. Canada had the same problem with the chinese in the 70's and they changed their laws. No more anchor babies....ur come here illegally and you go to processing camp and then get deported..and we bill you shitty country for the costs.
-
Well I'd say this issue is dead. Not surprised at all.
-
EXPERT: UP TO 400K CHILDREN BORN TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN U.S. ANNUALLY, ONE IN 10 BIRTHS
by CAROLINE MAY
29 Apr 201560
Up to 400K Children Born To Illegal Immigrants in U.S. Annually, One In 10 Births
Inform
Approximately 350,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. each year. Due to current policy, all automatically become U.S. citizens, Center for Immigration Studies legal policy analyst Jon Feere testified before a House panel Wednesday.
“To put this in perspective this means that one out of 10 births in the U.S. is to an illegal immigrant mother,” Freere said at a House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security hearing titled “Birthright Citizenship: Is It The Right Policy For America?”
He explained that, regardless of the foreign allegiance and/or illegal status of the parents, their children, if born on U.S. soil, are automatically afforded the benefits of U.S. citizenship, including a Social Security Number and U.S. passports. This benefit also applies, he noted, to those born to mere tourists and other people with temporary status in the U.S.
“It is unlikely that Congress intended such a broad application of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, and the Supreme Court has only held that children born to citizens or permanently domiciled immigrants must be considered U.S. citizens at birth. Some clarity from Congress would be helpful in resolving this ongoing debate,” Feere said.
Feere further testified that the number of children in the U.S. with illegal immigrant parents increased from 2.7 million in 2003 to 4.5 million in 2010 and noted that the birthright policy is intrinsically linked to some of President Obama’s executive amnesties.
“Under the immigration enforcement priorities of the Obama administration, illegal immigrants who give birth to U.S. citizens have become low priorities for deportation. Furthermore, the president’s DAPA program, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, currently held up in court would provide benefits to illegal immigrants who gave birth here and allow them to ‘stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation.’ The broad interpretation of the Citizenship Clause forms the basis for these policies,” he said.
The CIS expert highlighted other implications of birthright citizenship, such as birth tourism, where pregnant foreigners come to the U.S. simply to have a child with a U.S. passport.
“Birth tourism is becoming much more common with every passing year and Congress will have to address it,” Feere said.
Feere also testified that the many countries that once had birth-right policies have shifted away from them.
“The United States and Canada are the only two advanced economies as rated by the IMF to grant automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens,” he said.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/29/expert-up-to-400k-children-born-to-illegal-immigrants-in-u-s-annually-one-in-10-births/
-
Sorry, Republicans: Ending Birthright Citizenship Would Be Unconstitutional
The very amendment that conservatives want to "fix" stands as a shield against government-sanctioned discrimination.
Cristian Farias
Legal Affairs Writer, The Huffington Post
Posted: 08/19/2015
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com//asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/55d4dfa41400002e002e36f0.jpeg)
CREDIT: AP PHOTO BY JUSTIN HAYWORTH
Key figures in the crowded Republican field have spoken loud and clear about their desire to do away with birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants.
Donald Trump went a step further Tuesday when he said in a CNN interview that children born to immigrants under the present constitutional order "do not have American citizenship."
In other words, the citizenship they were born with is invalid, a notion Trump said he'd be willing to "test out" in a court of law.
But one needs not go that far.
It turns out that the very idea of amending the Constitution to end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants -- a move that squarely targets Latinos -- would probably be found unconstitutional. The same would be true for a Republican-backed bill with a similar goal that's pending in Congress.
The reason these proposals would be found unconstitutional is rooted in the very thing Republicans are attacking: the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Because for all the provisions and principles that the 14th Amendment stands for -- and birthright citizenship is only one of them -- one of the amendment's cornerstones is its promise of equal treatment for everyone.
"No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," says the last part of Section 1 of the amendment, also known as the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court has ruled that the clause applies to states and the federal government alike.
Over the years, the clause has been read broadly to mean that no government entity can pass a law that singles out or discriminates against anyone on the basis of their race, national origin or other protected characteristic. It generally means that no official action can treat people differently because of who they are.
That is the principle the Supreme Court has upheld in a number of historic rulings -- from Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 to Obergefell v. Hodges, June's historic gay marriage case.
In the latter, the court applied the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to invalidate a number of state bans on same-sex marriage, which the court found denied gay couples' right to "equal dignity in the eyes of the law." That is, those bans put them on unequal footing with everyone else.
This concept covers Latinos, too. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that equal protection of the laws applies fully to them -- in a little-known case that, as history would have it, was decided mere days before the landmark Brown ruling. The court has also ruled that equal protection applies to undocumented immigrants.
As a result of this and other precedents, federal courts can and will scrutinize any law or ordinance specifically targeting Latinos. And judges will be punishing in their review, applying a stiff constitutional test known as "strict scrutiny."
"Strict scrutiny, like a Civil War stomach wound, is generally fatal," wrote Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak in a recent New York Times article. The specifics are complex, but all that basically means is that most discriminatory laws will simply fail under the test.
So if any of the GOP proposals to strip immigrant children of birthright citizenship make it into law, it won't be long before they are challenged in court and, ultimately, found unconstitutional.
Lawsuits under the 14th Amendment can be messy, and one would hope that anti-immigrant sentiment never reaches a point that federal courts have to get involved. But if past cases have taught us anything, we can rest assured that the judiciary won't let the likes of Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) run roughshod over the Constitution with ideas that purport to fix it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-birthright-citizenship_55d4934be4b07addcb44c96a?kvcommref=mostpopular
-
this is fair on paper, but will never happen. You're going to deport a 17 year old kid who was born here, knows the language, and is ready to attend college?
Trump says he will.
-
Good man.
Cruz 'absolutely' backs ending birthright citizenship
By Jordain Carney
August 19, 2015
(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/blogs/cruzted08192015getty.jpg?itok=RlYLdkkz)
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said Wednesday that he "absolutely" supports ending birthright citizenship, suggesting that has been his position for years.
"Absolutely. We should end granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally," Cruz, who is running for president, said during an interview with the Michael Medved Show. "That has been my position from the very first day of my running for the Senate."
Cruz's comments come after Donald Trump's immigration policy proposal has sparked a debate among Republican presidential candidates and forced the issue into the media spotlight. The plan, released by Trump on Sunday, called for building a wall along the southern border and changing the 14th Amendment to end so-called guaranteed citizenship to those born inside the United States.
Cruz, who has repeatedly praised Trump throughout his presidential campaign, said Wednesday that the businessman and 2016 frontrunner is "forcing the mainstream media to talk about issues they don't want to talk about."
But the Texas Republican, who was himself born in Canada, also sought to galvanize off of Trump's plan, saying that he has offered "virtually every element" in legislation and that he "led the fight against amnesty" in the Senate.
"Jeff and I have fought for many of these legislative proposals side by side," Cruz added, referring to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), whom Trump consulted on his immigration proposal.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/251502-cruz-absolutely-backs-ending-birthright-citizenship
-
Good man.
Cruz 'absolutely' backs ending birthright citizenship
If Twump implodes, Cruz grabs all those votes. He's playing the waiting game.
-
I hope President Trump resurrects this issue.
-
This is where I draw the fucking line. Being born in this country, regardless of circumstances, is what grants you the rights we all enjoy.
If we allow politicians to define what a citizen is, what will come next NEITHER democrats NOR republicans will like.
-
I'm Canadian, but a couple of my nephews & nieces (from one sister) became U.S. citizens by naturalization ... and another couple of my nephews & nieces (from another sister) became U.S. citizens by birth but gave it up.
-
I'm Canadian, but a couple of my nephews & nieces (from one sister) became U.S. citizens by naturalization ... and another couple of my nephews & nieces (from another sister) became U.S. citizens by birth but gave it up.
You know what irks me to no end? That all these conservatives that seem to so be so Godly concerned about principles and values and all that fake bullshit posturing, spend no time working against the rights of individuals. ALL laws in the US are based on the individual, not a group or groups. If you came out of your mom's glory hole in the US, you're an American, regardless of whether your parents are illegal, tall, right-handed, blue-eyed, bald or Nicaraguan.
As a country, our entire existence in this country stems from one of the most heinous acts of genocide known to man kind, and our lax immigration policies somehow made up for the crime. We're now at a point of devolution, acting as if Sitting Bull were Irish and Pocahontas was from some shitty town in the outskirts of London.
Our laws are turning into utter SHIT. The state now has the power over you and I. Abortion will soon be illegal, and very few people will notice that we just gave the power to a state entity that does not allow our raped daughters to seek an abortion and then electrocute the woman because she killed the rapist. It makes no fucking sense.
Who is doing this?????!!!
-
When?
-
I know this will never happen, but I wish we could amend the Constitution to say that you are a citizen by birth only if both of your parents are legal citizens at the time of your birth. Would probably help with illegal immigration.
You have NO clue how many people fly in "on vacation" to have their kid born here then fly home once the kid is now an official American citizen..
crazy rule
-
You have NO clue how many people fly in "on vacation" to have their kid born here then fly home once the kid is now an official American citizen..
crazy rule
Not for nothing but... if you come here to give birth, I know of no foreign social security program that will fund that. And we all know what a hospital bed goes for these days.
To give birth here on purpose you have to have deep pockets. And if you have money, there is a loophole that will give you an automatic green card for bringing x amount of money into the country. Meaning you buy your way into citizenship.
Obviously poor immigrants are not part of that group.
-
I know this will never happen, but I wish we could amend the Constitution to say that you are a citizen by birth only if both of your parents are legal citizens at the time of your birth. Would probably help with illegal immigration.
it already says that
-
This is where I draw the fucking line. Being born in this country, regardless of circumstances, is what grants you the rights we all enjoy.
If we allow politicians to define what a citizen is, what will come next NEITHER democrats NOR republicans will like.
If you're born in this country by parents who are also citizens, then yes that person should get all of the rights citizens enjoy. But anchor babies? Shouldn't happen. This is one instance where I agree with what the rest of the world is doing.
-
If you're born in this country by parents who are also citizens, then yes that person should get all of the rights citizens enjoy. But anchor babies? Shouldn't happen. This is one instance where I agree with what the rest of the world is doing.
By this line of logic the descendants of the folks that came here and settled in Jamestown (VA) or Plymouth (MA) should have their citizenship revoked because their predecessors settled this country illegally and took part in one of the worst acts of genocide in the history of humanity (decimation of the Native American population).
It all seems to stop only when it comes to Mexicans and Muslims.
-
I really like your posts, Slapper. Some of the top ones I've read on these boards are from you.
But here's something for you to think about.
By this line of logic the descendants of the folks that came here and settled in Jamestown (VA) or Plymouth (MA) should have their citizenship revoked because their predecessors settled this country illegally and took part in one of the worst acts of genocide in the history of humanity (decimation of the Native American population).
It all seems to stop only when it comes to Mexicans and Muslims.
No, because logic says America couldn't continue to exist if they'd done that.
So, being that the primary interest is the continued existence of America: How can we allow it any longer, in a time when we so desperately require fewer people?
Furthermore, unlike the power plays against our rights as Americans, this is something that involves non-Americans who come here to give birth. And it doesn't at all require "deep pockets" as you say, as shown by the countless millions entering from the south. So how do you justify your stand?
-
The Bruce Springsteen song, (although I don't much care for rock and roll) "Born in the USA" is more than a song title. It involves concepts that are important to many citizens...no I would not change the constitution in this respect...
-
If you're born in this country by parents who are also citizens, then yes that person should get all of the rights citizens enjoy. But anchor babies? Shouldn't happen. This is one instance where I agree with what the rest of the world is doing.
What about someone like Ted Cruz?
Not born in this country. Father wasn't a citizen.
What do we do with people like that?
-
By this line of logic the descendants of the folks that came here and settled in Jamestown (VA) or Plymouth (MA) should have their citizenship revoked because their predecessors settled this country illegally and took part in one of the worst acts of genocide in the history of humanity (decimation of the Native American population).
It all seems to stop only when it comes to Mexicans and Muslims.
Talking about settlers who came here in 1607, 410 years ago, before the Constitution was even ratified in 1788, is not logical.
Our sordid history when it comes to indigenous people doesn't change the analysis either. This has nothing to do with Mexicans and Muslims.
-
What about someone like Ted Cruz?
Not born in this country. Father wasn't a citizen.
What do we do with people like that?
Cruz's mother was an American citizen when Ted was born. The children of American citizens should be American citizens.
-
The Bruce Springsteen song, (although I don't much care for rock and roll) "Born in the USA" is more than a song title. It involves concepts that are important to many citizens...no I would not change the constitution in this respect...
Not sure I catch your meaning, having just read the lyrics.
Are you referring to the title alone?
-
Cruz's mother was an American citizen when Ted was born. The children of American citizens should be American citizens.
Are you referring to both parents being citizens or 1 out of 2 parents is sufficient in your opinion? Based on your previous post I assumed you meant born in the US and both parents being US citizens:
If you're born in this country by parents who are also citizens, then yes that person should get all of the rights citizens enjoy. But anchor babies? Shouldn't happen. This is one instance where I agree with what the rest of the world is doing.
-
Are you referring to both parents being citizens or 1 out of 2 parents is sufficient in your opinion? Based on your previous post I assumed you meant born in the US and both parents being US citizens:
I'm ok with one parent being a citizen. Doesn't matter where the child of an American citizen is born.
-
Someone with the stones to say it.
Trump Blasts U.S. Anchor Baby Policy: ‘You’re Violating Something Very Sacred, You’re Violating a Border’
by JOHN BINDER
6 Apr 2018
President Trump blasted the United States’ birthright citizenship policy whereby the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are given automatic American citizenship, noting that illegal aliens are “violating a border.”
During a roundtable discussion in West Virginia, Trump slammed the birthright citizenship policy — illegal aliens’ children are commonly referred to as “anchor babies” — noting that fellow Western nations do not have such a policy.
Trump said:
If you have a baby on our land, congratulations. That baby is a United States citizen. We’re the only one. Now Mexico has very tough policies. They can do whatever they want, which is the way it should be. You’re violating something very sacred. You’re violating a border. [Emphasis added]
As Breitbart News reported, there are 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S. under the age of 18-years-old. This estimate does not include the potentially millions of anchor babies who are older than 18-years-old.
The 4.5 million anchor babies estimate exceeds the four million American children born every year. In the next decade, the CBO estimates that there will be at least another 600,000 anchor babies born in the U.S., which would put the anchor baby population on track to exceed annual American births — should the U.S. birth rate not increase — by more than one million anchor babies.
The birthright citizenship debate was not always partisan, as it currently is, with establishment Republicans and Democrats supporting anchor babies.
Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) once opposed birthright citizenship, saying in 1993 that “no sane country” would reward illegal aliens with U.S. citizenship for their children.
Proponents of birthright citizenship often claim the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the policy. The Supreme Court, however, has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic citizenship and many legal scholars dispute the idea.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/06/trump-blasts-u-s-anchor-baby-policy-youre-violating-something-very-sacred-youre-violating-a-border/
-
Anchor babies has never made sense to me.
-
From above:
As Breitbart News reported, there are 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S. under the age of 18-years-old. This estimate does not include the potentially millions of anchor babies who are older than 18-years-old.
The 4.5 million anchor babies estimate exceeds the four million American children born every year. In the next decade, the CBO estimates that there will be at least another 600,000 anchor babies born in the U.S., which would put the anchor baby population on track to exceed annual American births — should the U.S. birth rate not increase — by more than one million anchor babies.
This is happening at a time when technology and automation lowers need for population growth, to the point it screams a loud warning for reversal.
One of the first places leading that trend of technology and automation, happens to be the USA.
Don't let the ones engineering the mass migration tell you it's 'cause their hearts are just so kind. That's if you can identify those individuals to begin with. (They're the billionaires hiding behind the crowd of stupidity - tough to find them, though, because they spend so much time enjoying their estates, far away from us... but also on private islands... when not aboard their luxury yachts, of course... ya know, just the usual.)
No. They don't care about any of us. It's a lie - an evil lie. They're setting us up for widepread disaster, and they know it. They are waging war against us, and doing it the only way known to work when sharply outnumbered: through deception.
That's the real story.
-
Cruz's mother was an American citizen when Ted was born. The children of American citizens should be American citizens.
This doesn't jive with what you said earlier:
'I know this will never happen, but I wish we could amend the Constitution to say that you are a citizen by birth only if both of your parents are legal citizens at the time of your birth. Would probably help with illegal immigration'.
YET YOU MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR TED CRUZ,,,,I WONDER WHY??????
Your hypocrisy is showing AGAIN...yes he is a citizen but by your logic he should not be...correct??????
-
This doesn't jive with what you said earlier:
'I know this will never happen, but I wish we could amend the Constitution to say that you are a citizen by birth only if both of your parents are legal citizens at the time of your birth. Would probably help with illegal immigration'.
YET YOU MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR TED CRUZ,,,,I WONDER WHY??????
Your hypocrisy is showing AGAIN...yes he is a citizen but by your logic he should not be...correct??????
How are things in the shelter?
-
How are things in the shelter?
Are you working ANYWHERE as a lawyer??????...honestly????
By the way, they really really miss you down at the Bronx Courthouse
-
This doesn't jive with what you said earlier:
'I know this will never happen, but I wish we could amend the Constitution to say that you are a citizen by birth only if both of your parents are legal citizens at the time of your birth. Would probably help with illegal immigration'.
YET YOU MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR TED CRUZ,,,,I WONDER WHY??????
Your hypocrisy is showing AGAIN...yes he is a citizen but by your logic he should not be...correct??????
Oh wow. A contradiction. You got me. Good job Sherlock. Seven years in between those two statements. I changed my mind. When you're not an automaton you can do that.
-
He must be reading the board. :) I suspect he is setting this up to get the issue to the Supreme Court. If he keeps this kind of stuff up I will have to break down and get a MAGA hat.
Trump Seeks to Curb Birthright Citizenship, Escalating Immigration Debate
Constitutional scholars dismiss the idea, saying a president has no legal standing to unilaterally end the practice
President Trump in the past has called birthright citizenship a magnet for illegal immigration.
By Alex Leary
Updated Oct. 30, 2018
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-plans-executive-order-to-end-birthright-citizenship-in-u-s-1540901506
-
it'll never happen, total red herring
gov't likes the current system the way it is, same with illegals doing all the farm work
it's good $$$$$
-
it'll never happen, total red herring
gov't likes the current system the way it is, same with illegals doing all the farm work
it's good $$$$$
Most big farming is done by machine. Only select crops require people now.
-
Most big farming is done by machine. Only select crops require people now.
oh yeah
go to vermont or oregon and see hundreds of these brown pygmies in the field picking crops
not one of them with a green card or basic English
-
oh yeah
go to vermont or oregon and see hundreds of these brown pygmies in the field picking crops
not one of them with a green card or basic English
Don't forget all the chicken coops that need cleaning.
-
He must be reading the board. :) I suspect he is setting this up to get the issue to the Supreme Court. If he keeps this kind of stuff up I will have to break down and get a MAGA hat.
Trump Seeks to Curb Birthright Citizenship, Escalating Immigration Debate
Constitutional scholars dismiss the idea, saying a president has no legal standing to unilaterally end the practice
President Trump in the past has called birthright citizenship a magnet for illegal immigration.
By Alex Leary
Updated Oct. 30, 2018
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-plans-executive-order-to-end-birthright-citizenship-in-u-s-1540901506
I thought it was well established that Trump is a getbigger and the king of trolls.
-
I thought it was well established that Trump is a getbigger and the king of trolls.
:)
-
oh yeah
go to vermont or oregon and see hundreds of these brown pygmies in the field picking crops
not one of them with a green card or basic English
Here's a little history about Oregon farm laborers: Bracero Program
https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/bracero_program/#.W9oE_Lt_bb0
(https://oregonencyclopedia.org/media/uploads/thumbnails_medium/sm_Mexican_men__on_a_truck_bbq_at_Oaks_park_1944_023041.jpg)
Stats from 2014
-
2018 Woodburn Cinco de Mayo festival kicks off 13th year with traditional songs, dance
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/a98a624de7c393bee55318166953890fd5c0f5a5/c=136-0-2264-1600/local/-/media/2018/05/04/Salem/Salem/636610607495977017--L2B3229e.jpg?width=534&height=401&fit=crop)
Nellie Muir elementary school, Woodburn, OR
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9PVbzrtptl0/maxresdefault.jpg)
Mid-Valley farmers adjust to dwindling, uncertain number of workers
Stateman Journal 2017
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/50662160dcf0114a9c5fcb4a35652e0255e6ea93/c=0-42-2397-1396/local/-/media/2017/05/03/Salem/Salem/636294219220375171-VineyardWorkers-ar-01.JPG?width=3200&height=1680&fit=crop)
-
Oh wow. A contradiction. You got me. Good job Sherlock. Seven years in between those two statements. I changed my mind. When you're not an automaton you can do that.
But if that were me, you would be calling me a liar... weird how that works
-
But if that were me, you would be calling me a liar... weird how that works
Nah. I call you a liar when you actually lie. Like the time you posted negative reviews of a book I recommended, claiming it was a representative sample, when in fact the book received more than 90 percent 4 and 5 star reviews. That was dishonest, and I called you on it. Don't make me list other examples. lol
-
Nah. I call you a liar when you actually lie. Like the time you posted negative reviews of a book I recommended, claiming it was a representative sample, when in fact the book received more than 90 percent 4 and 5 star reviews. That was dishonest, and I called you on it. Don't make me list other examples. lol
stop coddling the enemy. Embrace the extremity. Believe in our President and do as he does. Embody MAGA in your posts and thoughts.
-
stop coddling the enemy. Embrace the extremity. Believe in our President and do as he does. Embody MAGA in your posts and thoughts.
No.. Dos, listen to me.. relax, filter the anger, release it into the air.. take deep breaths and think of a beach with turquoise waters.
-
stop coddling the enemy. Embrace the extremity. Believe in our President and do as he does. Embody MAGA in your posts and thoughts.
lol :)
-
No.. Dos, listen to me.. relax, filter the anger, release it into the air.. take deep breaths and think of a beach with turquoise waters.
::)
-
::)
that was close!
-
Trump says administration looking 'seriously' at ending birthright citizenship
BY BRETT SAMUELS - 08/21/19
President Trump on Wednesday said his administration is once again seriously considering an executive order to end birthright citizenship months after several lawmakers cast doubt on his ability to take such action.
"We're looking at that very seriously," Trump told reporters as he left the White House for Kentucky. "Birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land — walk over the border, have a baby, congratulations, the baby's now a U.S. citizen."
"We are looking at birthright citizenship very seriously," he added. "It’s, frankly, ridiculous."
The president proposed ending the practice that grants citizenship to those born in the United States during his 2016 presidential campaign. He revived the idea last year, saying he would sign an executive order to enact the change.
Numerous lawmakers, including several Republicans, quickly pushed back on the idea and argued Trump lacked the authority to make such a change using an executive order. They cited that birthright citizenship is a right enshrined under the 14th Amendment.
Trump responded to the criticism by saying birthright citizenship would be ended "one way or another."
The president has sought various ways to crack down on illegal and legal immigration throughout his presidency.
His administration enacted and later reversed a "zero tolerance" policy that led to the separation of thousands of migrant families; Trump has sought changes to asylum laws to keep refugees in Mexico while they wait to be processed; and the White House last week rolled out a rule that would make it more difficult for some immigrants to obtain green cards.
The Trump administration announced earlier Wednesday it would unveil a new rule that would allow migrant families to be held indefinitely, ending a procedure known as the Flores Settlement Agreement that requires children to be held no longer than 20 days.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458276-trump-says-administration-looking-seriously-at-ending-birthright
-
Trump says administration looking 'seriously' at ending birthright citizenship
BY BRETT SAMUELS - 08/21/19
President Trump on Wednesday said his administration is once again seriously considering an executive order to end birthright citizenship months after several lawmakers cast doubt on his ability to take such action.
"We're looking at that very seriously," Trump told reporters as he left the White House for Kentucky. "Birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land — walk over the border, have a baby, congratulations, the baby's now a U.S. citizen."
"We are looking at birthright citizenship very seriously," he added. "It’s, frankly, ridiculous."
The president proposed ending the practice that grants citizenship to those born in the United States during his 2016 presidential campaign. He revived the idea last year, saying he would sign an executive order to enact the change.
Numerous lawmakers, including several Republicans, quickly pushed back on the idea and argued Trump lacked the authority to make such a change using an executive order. They cited that birthright citizenship is a right enshrined under the 14th Amendment.
Trump responded to the criticism by saying birthright citizenship would be ended "one way or another."
The president has sought various ways to crack down on illegal and legal immigration throughout his presidency.
His administration enacted and later reversed a "zero tolerance" policy that led to the separation of thousands of migrant families; Trump has sought changes to asylum laws to keep refugees in Mexico while they wait to be processed; and the White House last week rolled out a rule that would make it more difficult for some immigrants to obtain green cards.
The Trump administration announced earlier Wednesday it would unveil a new rule that would allow migrant families to be held indefinitely, ending a procedure known as the Flores Settlement Agreement that requires children to be held no longer than 20 days.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458276-trump-says-administration-looking-seriously-at-ending-birthright
On one hand, I think that might curb some illegal immigrants, on the other hand, I don't think it will be a big enough impact to justify it.
-
Meh. Making more laws for people who don't follow laws.
-
has anyone ever thought of just not making free schools available? No healthcare treatment period without insurance or cash? Not a single welfare or subsidy dollar to someone here illegally? That will stop more illegal immigration than any wall will and will save us money rather than cost us.
-
has anyone ever thought of just not making free schools available? No healthcare treatment period without insurance or cash? Not a single welfare or subsidy dollar to someone here illegally? That will stop more illegal immigration than any wall will and will save us money rather than cost us.
When multitudes of women and children start dying in the streets from, starvation, illness or exposure, all hell will break loose....trust me. This will never happen in the U.S.
-
On one hand, I think that might curb some illegal immigrants, on the other hand, I don't think it will be a big enough impact to justify it.
I actually think this is one of the single biggest reasons we have so many illegal aliens.
-
has anyone ever thought of just not making free schools available? No healthcare treatment period without insurance or cash? Not a single welfare or subsidy dollar to someone here illegally? That will stop more illegal immigration than any wall will and will save us money rather than cost us.
Yes, but bleeding heart liberal douchenozzles like Gavin Newsom refuse to follow the law and force law abiding tax payers to foot the bill for these mooches.
-
Yes, but bleeding heart liberal douchenozzles like Gavin Newsom refuse to follow the law and force law abiding tax payers to foot the bill for these mooches.
Isn't this treason? Why aren't all these politicians arrested and hanged?
-
When multitudes of women and children start dying in the streets from, starvation, illness or exposure, all hell will break loose....trust me. This will never happen in the U.S.
I think that's a fallacy. Once word spreads people adapt.
-
I think that's a fallacy. Once word spreads people adapt.
41 Million People in the United States Face Hunger
September 6, 2017
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported today that 12.3 percent of American households remain food insecure – meaning that 1 in 8 households in the United States had difficulty at some time during the year in providing enough food for all their members.
https://www.feedingamerica.org/about-us/press-room/new-data
These people may or may not be starving from hunger, but their lives must really suck anyway. Homeless camp in the Portland Metro area.
Less children are going to bed hungry now that the new school year has begun. Although only lunch is mentioned, breakfast and afternoon snacks are also provided.
Eligible students can receive free or reduced-price lunches: Free lunches are available to children in households with incomes at or below 130 percent of poverty. Reduced-price lunches are available to children in households with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of poverty.Aug 20, 2019
-
Nonsense. All I see where I live are fat f ghetto parasites - none look starved.
41 Million People in the United States Face Hunger
September 6, 2017
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported today that 12.3 percent of American households remain food insecure – meaning that 1 in 8 households in the United States had difficulty at some time during the year in providing enough food for all their members.
https://www.feedingamerica.org/about-us/press-room/new-data
These people may or may not be starving from hunger, but their lives must really suck anyway. Homeless camp in the Portland Metro area.
Less children are going to bed hungry now that the new school year has begun. Although only lunch is mentioned, breakfast and afternoon snacks are also provided.
Eligible students can receive free or reduced-price lunches: Free lunches are available to children in households with incomes at or below 130 percent of poverty. Reduced-price lunches are available to children in households with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of poverty.Aug 20, 2019
-
Nonsense. All I see where I live are fat f ghetto parasites - none look starved.
And of course whatever you see within your limited view, confirms that it is absolutely true on a national basis. Give - me - a - break!
I worked in an elementary school where 80+% of the student body was on the free and reduced meal program. They weren't starving because food (not necessarily nutritious food) was provided by the program. BTW, most of what is government supplied and approved are garbage/prepared foods. Nothing you or I would think of eating, much less feeding to our kids. Charitable organizations as well as school staff funded a program that provided 'lunch bags' to help get these kiddos through the weekend.
-
And of course whatever you see within your limited view, confirms that it is absolutely true on a national basis. Give - me - a - break!
I worked in an elementary school where 80+% of the student body was on the free and reduced meal program. They weren't starving because food (not necessarily nutritious food) was provided by the program. BTW, most of what is government supplied and approved are garbage/prepared foods. Nothing you or I would think of eating, much less feeding to our kids. Charitable organizations as well as school staff funded a program that provided 'lunch bags' to help get these kiddos through the weekend.
I wish there were a way to get the word out to adults, who are adulting, that children are expensive to clothe feed and raise so that they don't have them if they can't afford to feed them. :)
-
I wish there were a way to get the word out to adults, who are adulting, that children are expensive to clothe feed and raise so that they don't have them if they can't afford to feed them. :)
Me too. It seems to me the very same people who should give the most consideration as to how many, if any children they can afford to raise are the very same people haphazardly reproducing at the highest rate. Providing even the basics; such as proper nutrition, healthcare, education and emotional support is daunting. In order to manage, many folks work more that one job. It is rare today when someone can be a stay at home parent who actually has time to properly nurture their children. Many people have 'nothing left' for their kids after 60+ hours working, just to pay the bills. Add in the constant 'changing partners' attitude many people have and it is a total setup for failure.
Unfortunately, responsible parenting is not at the forefront of a lot of folks minds. Pregnancy is often a haphazard accident which too often results in inconvenient and unwanted babies. Infants who need responsible parents in order to thrive and eventually become responsible adults. There exists an unfortunate cycle of failure to advance our own species. Not to be overly dramatic, but basically humankind seems doomed to self-destruction as opposed to responsible productive enlightenment.
-
I wish there were a way to get the word out to adults, who are adulting, that children are expensive to clothe feed and raise so that they don't have them if they can't afford to feed them. :)
Having children isn't a Constitutionally protected right. Should have to get licensed, background checks and register your children. :D
-
At least someone is talking about this again. I still believe eliminating anchor babies would have a big impact on illegal immigration.
Trump pledges to end birthright citizenship on first day in office
BY RAFAEL BERNAL - 05/30/23
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4026334-trump-pledges-to-end-birthright-citizenship-on-first-day-in-office/
-
At least someone is talking about this again. I still believe eliminating anchor babies would have a big impact on illegal immigration.
Trump pledges to end birthright citizenship on first day in office
BY RAFAEL BERNAL - 05/30/23
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4026334-trump-pledges-to-end-birthright-citizenship-on-first-day-in-office/
Trump Oct 30, 2018
“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” Trump said in part of an interview with Axios published on Oct. 30. “Number one, you don’t need that. Number two, you can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.”
Trump said he has talked about it with White House counsel.
“It’s in the process,” Trump said. “It’ll happen, with an executive order.”
I'm no expert on Trump, but I doubt anyone else is really expecting him to follow through on said promise....
Having said that, the anchor baby citizenship needs overhauling badly
-
Trump Oct 30, 2018
“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” Trump said in part of an interview with Axios published on Oct. 30. “Number one, you don’t need that. Number two, you can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.”
Trump said he has talked about it with White House counsel.
“It’s in the process,” Trump said. “It’ll happen, with an executive order.”
I'm no expert on Trump, but I doubt anyone else is really expecting him to follow through on said promise....
Having said that, the anchor baby citizenship needs overhauling badly
I don’t trust any politician, regardless of party, to keep their promises.
That said, Trump (who isn’t really a politician) did better than any president of my lifetime at trying to keep his promises. Didn’t keep them all, but was certainly miles ahead of Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.
If we start enforcing the border again, ending anchor babies will significantly reduce illegal immigration.
-
The Bruce Springsteen song, (although I don't much care for rock and roll) "Born in the USA" is more than a song title. It involves concepts that are important to many citizens...no I would not change the Constitution in this respect...
I still have this position...
-
Notice there is no talk of citizenship like there used to be. The left wants an underclass not covered by the Constitution.
-
Ramaswamy, Scott vow to end to birthright citizenship during debate
By Brett Rowland | The Center Square
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_8512670e-5daf-11ee-83f0-7b60506d6098.html?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home