We can get around the 14th Amendment re "anchor babies"

[republicanchick]

vis a vis anchor babies:

There are ways around the 14th Amendment, even ASSUMING the 14th A. clearly was meant to apply (was written to apply) to children born to illegal "immigrants" --which it was NOT. Nowhere in that Amendment do you see the term Illegal immigrant

But let's just say 4 the sake of argument that the 14th A. says anchor babies are legal citizens

Well, babies and children need parents or other caregivers to raise them. I'm sure you would agree


I say if you have a child here (give birth to a child here) and that child is there4 a citizen but you are illegal, you have to make a choice: leave your child here w/ legal folks and return to [wherever] or take the child with you.. don't let the screen door hit you...


[I feel compelled, however, to reserve the right to think more thoroughly about this b4 setting it in stone in my mind... but that is how I feel at this time, barring some unknown information that would possibly come to light in the future to change my mind...]


++

 

[annabenedetti]

It'll be interesting to watch second amendment conservatives trying to justify a way "around" the fourteenth amendment.

 

[HisServant]

The government already ignored the 14th amendment when it came up with the idea of civil forfeitures.

The 14th amendment was written specifically make make former slaves citizens.... illegal immigrants are not former slaves.

It's going to be fun to watch the mental gymnastics.

 

[quip]

There are ways around the 14th Amendment....

Spoken like a truly enlightened conservative ....lain:

 

[rexlunae]

I think the most interesting thing about all of this is the clear desire that some conservatives have to de-legitimize some legitimately unquestioned American citizens. For a long time, the prevailing rhetoric against undocumented immigrants was that they had broken the law, but that simply doesn't apply here. These people's parents may have broken the law, but they did nothing wrong. Why should we question their citizenship?

Moreover, if you unravel birthright citizenship, there are a lot of people who have been citizens for generations, who would never have questioned their citizenship, but who might find that they are no longer considered citizens. Are we prepared for that?

At bottom, this is really just lightly-coded racist populism against brown people. With Godwin in mind, none-the-less it is a remarkably similar mode of rhetoric to what Hitler used against the Jews.

 

[Ktoyou]

The original purpose on 13th, 14th and 15th amendments was to secure the civil rights of past slaves; that their children, like themselves, had rights to full citizenship. It is another matter when someone enters the country for the purpose of have a 'naturalized' child. This was not the intent; it would be easy to interpret the 14th amendment as being birth naturalization for those who parents are citizens in the USA.

 

[rexlunae]

The original purpose on 13th, 14th and 15th amendments was to secure the civil rights of past slaves; that their children, like themselves, had rights to full citizenship.

That's not really true. When the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court precedent regarding citizenship was Dredd Scott, which held that black people couldn't be citizens, regardless of being prior slaves or not. The Court ruled that black people were not considered to be members of the community, and therefore they were not citizens in the meaning of the Constitution.

So the Fourteenth Amendment deliberately brought those people "in from the cold", by means of a very simple and easy to understand formulation. If you were born here, you belong here. A very small number of exceptions are allowed for situations where people are legitimately not members of our society, but people who have been here from birth really are Americans in every practical sense.

It is another matter when someone enters the country for the purpose of have a 'naturalized' child.

By definition, there's no need for a citizen to be "naturalized".

This was not the intent; it would be easy to interpret the 14th amendment as being birth naturalization for those who parents are citizens in the USA.

It's really not far from the intent. Citizenship for that child doesn't impact the parents' legal status. How can you justify punishing the child for their parents alleged misdeeds? This is a country of immigrants, and the vast majority of us have fairly recent immigrants in our past, and it only makes sense that we follow a principle of birthright citizenship, else we run the risk of establishing a permanently stateless and disenfranchised underclass. It was the principle before Dredd Scott, it was the principle after the Civil War, and nothing but a huge racist panic can really justify changing it.

 

[Eeset]

I'll bet that a constitutional amendment worded simply enough could zipe through the House and Senate and then quickly receive approval of at least 40 state legislatures.

Recommended amendment:
Effective from the date of ratification of this amendment a child born on US soil will not be granted citizenship unless at least one of the child's parents is a US citizen on the date of the child's birth. In addition, if the father is claimed to be a US citizen but the mother is not a US citizen then a DNA test to establish paternity will be required.

 

[quip]

I'll bet that a constitutional amendment worded simply enough could zipe through the House and Senate and then quickly receive approval of at least 40 state legislatures.

Recommended amendment:
Effective from the date of ratification of this amendment a child born on US soil will not be granted citizenship unless at least one of the child's parents is a US citizen on the date of the child's birth. In addition, if the father is claimed to be a US citizen but the mother is not a US citizen then a DNA test to establish paternity will be required.

The Maury Povich show would be perfect in this capacity.

 

[rexlunae]

I'll bet that a constitutional amendment worded simply enough could zipe through the House and Senate and then quickly receive approval of at least 40 state legislatures.

Recommended amendment:
Effective from the date of ratification of this amendment a child born on US soil will not be granted citizenship unless at least one of the child's parents is a US citizen on the date of the child's birth. In addition, if the father is claimed to be a US citizen but the mother is not a US citizen then a DNA test to establish paternity will be required.

No, it wouldn't.

 

[jgarden]

Why haven't Donald Trump or any of the conservatives who support circumventing the 14th Amendment produced any reliable studies to determine the size of the problem?

 

[republicanchick]

The original purpose on 13th, 14th and 15th amendments was to secure the civil rights of past slaves; that their children, like themselves, had rights to full citizenship. It is another matter when someone enters the country for the purpose of have a 'naturalized' child. This was not the intent; it would be easy to interpret the 14th amendment as being birth naturalization for those who parents are citizens in the USA.

u r the only one around here, apparently, who speaks with the voice of reason.

it seems to me that someone in the legislature could write up a bill saying illegals' children dont have citizenship.. Then if someone wants to attack the constitutionality of that, it could go to the sup ct...


+

 

[quip]

u r the only one around here, apparently, who speaks with the voice of reason.

it seems to me that someone in the legislature could write up a bill saying illegals' children dont have citizenship.. Then if someone wants to attack the constitutionality of that, it could go to the sup ct...


+

Like they did with slavery? :whip: ...ooops!

 

[The Berean]

I think the most interesting thing about all of this is the clear desire that some conservatives have to de-legitimize some legitimately unquestioned American citizens. For a long time, the prevailing rhetoric against undocumented immigrants was that they had broken the law, but that simply doesn't apply here. These people's parents may have broken the law, but they did nothing wrong. Why should we question their citizenship?

Moreover, if you unravel birthright citizenship, there are a lot of people who have been citizens for generations, who would never have questioned their citizenship, but who might find that they are no longer considered citizens. Are we prepared for that?

At bottom, this is really just lightly-coded racist populism against brown people. With Godwin in mind, none-the-less it is a remarkably similar mode of rhetoric to what Hitler used against the Jews.

Pretty much the bottom line. Some people don't want too many "Mexicans" in America. I'm looking at you Ann Coulter.

 

[quip]

Pretty much the bottom line. Some people don't want too many "Mexican-Americans" in America. I'm looking (sic) you Ann Coulter.

Fixed.

 

[The Berean]

Fixed.

Well, them, too. Back in the 1930's-40's the US government illegally deported Mexican-Americans to Mexico! :bang:

.