Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss...

Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (Full Version)

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

Message

ShaharThorne -> Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/3/2010 3:55:44 PM)
On ABC news, there are people talking about changing the 14th Amendment about naturalized citizens (especially babies) to where one of the parents has to be a citizen of the USA, not just documected(?) workers. It will take a lot of work to pass that change because it is affecting the anchor babies. I have no problem with green card folks having their children here. My background is Native American, German and Swedish, so I am the "child" of someone coming here to live in the USA. What I don't get is the fact that people want to change an amendment because of illegals are using it to stay in here. Betcha that where they came from is not a palace. USA is the place where they can have equal rights and a way to be part of the system. The ones I know are working to get their green cards so they can stay here. Now...discuss this between yourselves.

Aylee -> RE: Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/3/2010 4:06:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaharThorne On ABC news, there are people talking about changing the 14th Amendment about naturalized citizens (especially babies) to where one of the parents has to be a citizen of the USA, not just documented(?) workers. It will take a lot of work to pass that change because it is affecting the anchor babies. I think that the problem is that people are a bit confused about the usefulness of "anchor babies." Such a child is not allowed to petition to bring their parents over as legal immigrants until they are 21. They can began the process for their siblings when they are 18. And if the parents are in the country illegally, I believe that disqualifies them. The term started in the 1980's with Vietnamese "boat children," I believe.

Elisabella -> RE: Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/3/2010 4:35:15 PM)
I think if one parent is a legal citizen or resident of the US the child should get citizenship. If the parents are in the US illegally, on a tourist or student visa, or a temporary migrant worker the child should not get citizenship. I draw the line where I do because a legal resident of the US is on the path to citizenship whereas the others are not. If the child is going to get citizenship based on the father's status, I'd require both a paternity test and proof that the father will be the child's primary guardian if the mother leaves the US.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/3/2010 4:39:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: ShaharThorne On ABC news, there are people talking about changing the 14th Amendment about naturalized citizens (especially babies) to where one of the parents has to be a citizen of the USA, not just documented(?) workers. It will take a lot of work to pass that change because it is affecting the anchor babies. I think that the problem is that people are a bit confused about the usefulness of "anchor babies." Such a child is not allowed to petition to bring their parents over as legal immigrants until they are 21. They can began the process for their siblings when they are 18. And if the parents are in the country illegally, I believe that disqualifies them. The term started in the 1980's with Vietnamese "boat children," I believe. The law and reality are two different things. Parents of anchor babies are rarely deported because of the reluctance to split up a family. Parents being in the country illegally doesnt disqualify the baby from citizenship, if thts what your penultimate sentence was referring to. That is precisely the problem with the law...cross the border illegally, drop your package in a US hospital and voila ...your chances of deportation just fell through the floor. Even Lindsey Graham has (supposedly) woken up to the folly of anchor babies, a practice where the US stands pretty much alone.

jlf1961 -> RE: Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/3/2010 4:45:04 PM)
The problem with changing the 14th amendment is that it would set it legally so someone who was born of two citizens could, conceivably be denied citizenship. Of course, Robert A. Heinlein worked out a pretty good way for people to earn citizenship.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/3/2010 5:12:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The problem with changing the 14th amendment is that it would set it legally so someone who was born of two citizens could, conceivably be denied citizenship. Wow that would be hard to avoid in drafting a new 14th.

Owner59 -> RE: Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/3/2010 8:51:04 PM)
Ironic that folks who claim to be strict constitutionalists are behind changing the constitution. Ironic that it`s republicans who originally passed the 14th amendment.

Aylee -> RE: Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/3/2010 9:27:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Ironic that folks who claim to be strict constitutionalists are behind changing the constitution. Ironic that it`s republicans who originally passed the 14th amendment. Learn to read. The US Constitution tells the steps to be taken to change it. Taking those steps to change it WOULD be in line with being a "strict constitutionalist." As opposed to changing it by legislating from the bench. Did you not have a civics class in fourth grade?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/3/2010 9:44:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Ironic that folks who claim to be strict constitutionalists are behind changing the constitution. Ironic that it`s republicans who originally passed the 14th amendment. It isnt the least bit ironic if you had a fucking clue what a "strict constitutionalist's" position actually is: Not allowing activist judges to interpret the Constitution as they see fit, but as intended by the framers and reflected in the plain language of the document. IF there are Constitutional provisions that society no longer agrees with, then no strict constitutionalist objects to amendments that reflect that. You do realize that the Amendment process IS part of the Constitution, right? Therefore NOT supporting the ability to amend it would not be strictly adhering to it.

Owner59 -> RE: Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/3/2010 10:21:24 PM)
"It isnt the least bit ironic if you had a fucking clue what a "strict constitutionalist's" position actually is" LOL,funny........somehow I knew that "strict constitutionalist" didn`t really mean that.[:D] ~~~~~~~~~~~ The Constitution says that the courts interpret law. Ironic, that it`s "strict" Constitutionalists,...... who never learned that in 4th grade or ever.

Aylee -> RE: Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/3/2010 11:48:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "It isnt the least bit ironic if you had a fucking clue what a "strict constitutionalist's" position actually is" LOL,funny........somehow I knew that "strict constitutionalist" didn`t really mean that.[:D] ~~~~~~~~~~~ Didn't mean what? That they believe in using the procedures outlined in the constitution to amend it? quote: The Constitution says that the courts interpret law. Ironic, that it`s "strict" Constitutionalists,...... who never learned that in 4th grade or ever. No. No it does not. Judaical review is something discussed in the Federalist Papers. Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

popeye1250 -> RE: Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/4/2010 12:02:31 AM)
The 14th Amendment was origionally written in 1868 to give "full citizenship" to freed slaves who were then considered "3/5's" of a citizen. I don't even think it's a "loophole" for anyone in the country illegally to be useing. In Ireland about 3 or 4 years ago the Irish people voted on this very issue and it passed by 80% to 20% "for" having BOTH parents having to be in the country Legally to have Irish citizenship conferred on any offspring. I believe Ireland was the (last) country in Europe to do that. I don't know of any other country in Europe that does. When you have illegal aliens and U.S. Citizenship Tourism from S. Korea, Turkey and many other countries that charge couples $25,000 to make all the "arrangements" so that their child is born in the U.S. and their child given "automatic citizenship" then there's not a lot to think about, it has to be changed. And it shouldn't require a "constitutional amendment" to do it either, just tighten up the language! There was a congresswoman in Michigan I think who wanted to do it a few years ago. The people in this country in the 1700's and 1800's wearn't "perfect." But I don't think that makes it right for foreign nationals to take advantage of their mistakes and usurp our laws.

Owner59 -> RE: Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/4/2010 5:44:35 AM)
Here we go....cons giving us civics and history lessons.......[8\|] At least this guy has some sense...... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/03/lou-dobbs-gop-immigration-14th-amendment_n_669760.html

truckinslave -> RE: Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/4/2010 9:38:54 AM)
quote: If the parents are in the US illegally, on a tourist or student visa, or a temporary migrant worker the child should not get citizenship. There are Chinese travel agencies advertising to pregnant women trips to come here for the express purpose of having their babies. American citizenship should mean more. Other nations put a higher value on their granting of citizenship.....

truckinslave -> RE: Fourteenth Amendment...please discuss... (8/4/2010 9:40:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The problem with changing the 14th amendment is that it would set it legally so someone who was born of two citizens could, conceivably be denied citizenship. Wow that would be hard to avoid in drafting a new 14th. Remeber to turn off the sarc icon.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875