RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tazzygirl -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/28/2010 7:19:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

In that case, give the US back to the natives. This IS stolen land. All of it. Is this really an argument you wish to entertain?


The native americans whom I have spoken with would settle for the u.s. simply honoring the treaties that they signed.


When you attend tribal councils, when you are made privy to the inner thoughts of a tribal community, when you can actually ask more than a few friends... let me know. I will be fascinated to see if the councils and meetings you attend differ from my own.

Until such a time, dont speak for the native american community based upon the words of a few friends.




tazzygirl -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/28/2010 7:41:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Some will have you to believe its only mexican illegal immigrants who do this. Its not. I posted a link by ABC that shows how Turkish women used an american hotel to have us born children.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birth-tourism-industry-markets-us-citizenship-abroad/story?id=10359956&page=1



Actually it is a turkish hotel in new york.
This from your article


Turkey, where as many as 12,000 children were born in the United States to Turkish parents since 2003 by one estimate.

The business of birth tourism is perfectly legal as long as immigrants are able to pay their own way.

That is a whopping 1600 per year but you notice it says it is an estimate. So you really have no clue what the number really is. In the ten plus million illegal alliens who reside here 1600 births a year is hardly statisticly relevant.
Note also that the turk women are legally here, and they would take the child back with them to turkey.





The numbers do not matter. Nor the fact that the children leave. That wasnt the point, but its all you decide to see. The point is that this has become a growing industry, trading US citizenship for big bucks to private industries.

But you did leave a part of that quote out. Interesting.

quote:

In recent years , many women have come from Mexico, South Korea, China and Taiwan , but the trend now extends to countries in Eastern Europe, such as Turkey, where as many as 12,000 children were born in the United States to Turkish parents since 2003 by one estimate.

The business of birth tourism is perfectly legal as long as immigrants are able to pay their own way.

The State Department and Department of Homeland Security have no specific regulations banning pregnant foreigners from entering the United States. But officials say they can and do turn away pregnant women with obvious designs on coming to the United States to take advantage of free medical care.

"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," the amendment reads.

"It's really an incorrect interpretation of the 14th Amendment," said Jerome Corsi, a conservative author and columnist who has studied the issue of birth tourism. "Birthright citizenship is a loophole … [and] as it expands into a business for entrepreneurs in foreign countries who offer birth tourism packages, it markets the loophole to attract additional mothers to the U.S."

"You just turn people down for being pregnant," said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies. "That should be the default position and then there'd have to be some very good reason for an exception."

Krikorian acknowledged that some people might find a ban on pregnant visitors "outrageous," but questions the rationality of the alternative.

"Do you really think that's right that somebody here visiting Disneyland should have their children be U.S. citizens, which they'll then inevitably use to get access to the U.S.?" he asked.

Krikorian and others call the offspring of birth tourists "anchor babies," because they can serve as a foothold for future legal immigration of an entire family.

Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said he sees the debate about birth tourists in a different light, however, noting that arguments about citizenship of children ignore a fundamental question of humanity.

"If we're a country that cares about families and family values, then why are we blaming the children for a decision the parents made. Their only decision was to take a first breath," he said.

"What is the State Department going to do? To fill out a visa application have a woman pee on a stick?"

The United States is one of the few remaining countries to grant citizenship to all children born on its soil. The United Kingdom, Ireland, India and Australia, among others, have since revised their birthright laws, no longer allowing every child born on their soil to get citizenship.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birth-tourism-industry-markets-us-citizenship-abroad/story?id=10359956&page=3

Its time this changed. Which, again, is the topic of this thread.




thompsonx -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/28/2010 7:52:12 PM)

Tazzy:
Perhaps you might want to read something by leonard peltier, dennis banks
or russell means.
Unless of course you do not feel that AIM and the above named individuals speak for any significant segment of native americans.
Do you ever think before you stuff both feet in your mouth?




tazzygirl -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/28/2010 7:54:14 PM)

I have no feet in my mouth, thank you very much. What i do have is experience in the things i speak of, not what someone else writes and tells me to think. Try that sometime. Get out and live, instead of living life through a series of books. [8|]




thompsonx -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/28/2010 7:56:36 PM)

The numbers do not matter. Nor the fact that the children leave. That wasnt the point, but its all you decide to see. The point is that this has become a growing industry, trading US citizenship for big bucks to private industries.



It is legal, it does get your knickers in a twist, and it has absolutely no affect on you. But on you go with your hysteria.




tazzygirl -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/28/2010 8:10:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The numbers do not matter. Nor the fact that the children leave. That wasnt the point, but its all you decide to see. The point is that this has become a growing industry, trading US citizenship for big bucks to private industries.



It is legal, it does get your knickers in a twist, and it has absolutely no affect on you. But on you go with your hysteria.


This said by a man who has his balls in a twist because US citzens want a law changed to reflect citizenship to be something beyond where a baby is delivered.

The same man who is pissy about how the US stole land from Mexico, but has no compulsion to how the founding fathers stole land from the natives. And to further this part, i never said the natives wanted it back. My response was in direct response to you whining about how California and other states was stolen at gunpoint. Since those are your feelings, that it is wrong to steal, you should be advocating the return to the Indian nation, not bitching about what we did to Mexico.

Many countries have gine up the option of birth rights. The US will soon follow. Now slip that into your crack pipe and smoke on it for a while. Or is it a bottle you hit that makes you so distorted? Doesnt matter. Your brain is turning to mush and most see your anger and bitterness. Lemme guess. Your part mexican, or someone in your family is. Makes sense to me if that is true. If not, then you really got issues.

Someone told me i was fighting a losing battle trying to have a discourse with you. I still attempted. But like everyone else, im sick of having my posts twisted to suit your moods, which are extremely fleeting. You sit in your moodiness and argue with yourself. You have no clue of half of what you speak of. I made one simple mistake in reading. But to appologize to the likes of you? Hell will freeze over, thaw out, and refreeze before that ever happens.




cadenas -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/29/2010 3:03:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

They do not live here legally is the point that you seem to keep missing. The child does not give them any legal status.

What do you imagine would be the response if american citizens were being deported? You cannot deport an american citizen. Therefore, these children cannot be deported. Since they cannot be deported, but they are minors, who is going to take care of them?

Now we come to the issue of custody. You cannot break the ties of parent/child without good cause. Being an illegal immigrant is not a good cause.

Do i really need to point out the fact that if a child is a citizen, it requires an adult to take care of them and declaring an illegal immigrant an unfit parent without cause beyond being illegal is why so many ARE ABLE to stay?

THAT is what i mean by living on the backs of their citizen children.

Others have already pointed out that your quotes only show that the term exists - not that it actually provides the benefits you assume it provides.

Actually, the Supreme Court has already addressed that question a long time ago in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Jong Ha Wang. Parents of US citizens can be deported without a problem (and according to your own numbers, tens of thousands are indeed deported, 13,000 in a single year alone)

And this position makes sense. The parent gets deported. The child, as a US citizen, is of course free to leave the country with the parent. There simply is no law against US citizen children living in Canada or Mexico with their parents. So there is usually no issue of breaking up a family - and, as SCOTUS ruled, even if it was, that would usually not be enough to prevent deportation of the parent. The only exception is extreme hardship to the child (extreme hardship to the parent doesn't matter) - usually, that means that the child would die in the other country (for instance, if the child has cancer and the country has no cancer hospitals for children).

That aside: deporting US citizens actually happens far more often than you would think. Usually, it happens when a US citizen arrives from another country and an immigration officer for some reason thinks that the passport is a forgery. When arriving at an airport, you can be deported without any recourse - the immigration officer simply needs a signature from his supervisor, and off you go. It's called "expedited removal". No "due process" no "right to a lawyer" nothing.

It almost happened to a friend of mine a few years ago; she lives in Guam and has a somewhat Hispanic look to her. When returning from a short trip to Mexico, the immigration officer thought her US passport was forged because he didn't know about Guam or that it was actually part of the USA and that US passports are issued there. Fortunately, this was before expedited removal, and it eventually got straightened out, but it could have easily gone the other way.





cadenas -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/29/2010 3:26:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
As far as France... you have that backwards.

French nationality law is historically based on the principles of jus soli, according to Ernest Renan's definition, and/or the German's definition of nationality formalized by Fichte. The 1993 reform (Méhaignerie Act) required children born in France of foreign parents to request French nationality at adulthood, rather than being automatically accorded citizenship. This "manifestation of will" requirement was subsequently abrogated by the Guigou Law of 1998 [1], but children born in France of foreign parents remain foreign until obtaining legal majority.

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


Be that as it may - the point remains that such a child would automatically (based on the 1998 law) become a French citizen based on the simple fact that he was born in France. Whether the citizenship is given at birth or 18 years later really makes no difference in the context we are discussing here.





willbeurdaddy -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/29/2010 8:11:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Good, it's a stupid fucking law anyway.


Is there some other part of my constitution you would like to wipe your ass with?


Too bad "your constitution" does not confer birthright citizenship on children of illegals, in the opinion of many consitutional scholars.




mnottertail -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/29/2010 8:22:02 AM)

But these scholars would appear to be incorrect, since those birth certificates have been signed for lo----------these many, many countless years, under many different administrations.

Where is the Supreme Court challenge, one wonders?





willbeurdaddy -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/29/2010 8:26:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

But these scholars would appear to be incorrect, since those birth certificates have been signed for lo----------these many, many countless years, under many different administrations.

Where is the Supreme Court challenge, one wonders?




Since when does a birth certificate attest to citizenship?

Countless years...under many administrations... how many of them have faced illegal immigration to the extent of the last 2 or 3? The constutional challenge will be coming if Az passes this law. My bet is that the 14th will not stand wrt illegals.




mnottertail -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/29/2010 8:34:38 AM)

since as long as I have been alive.  thats how I got to be me.  thats how I proved my citizenship to get my drivers license, my passport, join the army......




rulemylife -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/29/2010 9:26:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: catfightservice

I think all imigrants, legal and illegal, and their decendants, should go back to their country of origin.


This is, without a doubt, THE most ridiculous comment I have ever heard on these boards.

Removing all immigrants and their descendants would pretty much leave the country empty.  Would it not?






mnottertail -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/29/2010 9:32:29 AM)

And Africa overcrowed, and in many places it cannot succor the people already there reliably.

But some really great ideas have been put forward, huh?




rulemylife -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/29/2010 9:42:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birth-tourism-industry-markets-us-citizenship-abroad/story?id=10359956&page=3

Its time this changed. Which, again, is the topic of this thread.


Laws can be passed to end this practice without affecting birthright citizenship.






popeye1250 -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/29/2010 1:08:47 PM)

Simply change the law so that both parents must be in the U.S. legally to have any offspring become a citizen.
That's what they did in Ireland in 2006. Done.
Put it on the ballot in all 50 states and make it binding.
It's not "o.k." to sneak into any country illegally.
People need to understand that Mexico is not our "friend".




rulemylife -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/29/2010 7:55:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Since when does a birth certificate attest to citizenship?



Well then, I guess we settled one issue.

We won't have to hear anymore whining from the birthers since we have your expert opinion that a birth certificate doesn't attest to citizenship anyway.







cadenas -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/29/2010 9:23:45 PM)

That's not how a Constitutional Amendment is passed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Simply change the law so that both parents must be in the U.S. legally to have any offspring become a citizen.
That's what they did in Ireland in 2006. Done.
Put it on the ballot in all 50 states and make it binding.
It's not "o.k." to sneak into any country illegally.
People need to understand that Mexico is not our "friend".




popeye1250 -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/29/2010 11:48:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

That's not how a Constitutional Amendment is passed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Simply change the law so that both parents must be in the U.S. legally to have any offspring become a citizen.
That's what they did in Ireland in 2006. Done.
Put it on the ballot in all 50 states and make it binding.
It's not "o.k." to sneak into any country illegally.
People need to understand that Mexico is not our "friend".




Cadenas, then they need to do whatever they got to do!
Padlock the doors of congress and don't FUCKIN' let them out until it's 435 for, 0 against.




cadenas -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/30/2010 3:00:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
That's not how a Constitutional Amendment is passed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Simply change the law so that both parents must be in the U.S. legally to have any offspring become a citizen.
That's what they did in Ireland in 2006. Done.
Put it on the ballot in all 50 states and make it binding.
It's not "o.k." to sneak into any country illegally.
People need to understand that Mexico is not our "friend".


Cadenas, then they need to do whatever they got to do!
Padlock the doors of congress and don't FUCKIN' let them out until it's 435 for, 0 against.


And it would still not pass as a Constitutional Amendment. The House of Representatives with its 435 members CANNOT pass an Amendment, not even unanimously (for that matter, they couldn't even pass a regular law that way). Read the Constitution to see what the actual Amendment process requires. The vast majority of Constitutional Amendment attempts never make it. And the one you are suggesting (removing citizenship of children of illegal immigrants) was already defeated in 2003. Mark Foley (who later resigned over the sex scandal with his Congressional pages) introduced it, but it never even made it out of committee.

Our Founding Fathers made it deliberately difficult to pass an Amendment, specifically to make sure that Amendments are only passed after years or decades of debate and with a very broad national consensus (which we don't have in this case, or we wouldn't be having this discussion). There is a reason only 17 Amendments were passed in all of US history (plus the original 10 in the Bill of Rights of course). The last thing we need is another situation like the 18th Amendment, which was rushed through in only two years and consequently was probably the most ill-conceived Amendment ever (and the only Amendment ever that was repealed, 12 years later).





Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875