quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Which, in your opinion, is more important, intent or wording?

I have clearly stated numerous times that I feel both are necessary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Let's put out a hypothetical situation here. John and Jane Doe are US Citizens in Germany, working for a US company. During the 5 years they live there (only coming home for visits at Christmas), they have a child. What is the citizenship of the child, in the eyes of the US Government?

If John and Jane are in Mexico the U.S. government will say the child has dual citizenship.

quote:


Poor choice of countries for my example aside, the US Government will say the child has US Citizenship and Mexican Citizenship, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Which, in your opinion, is more important, intent or wording?

I have clearly stated numerous times that I feel both are necessary.

Do you think they are of equal importance?

What happens when the wording and intent don't match?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
First of all, your rules would put us on a par with countries such as Iraq and Kuwait. Birthright citizenship is the standard nearly anywhere in the civilized world; even Germany has finally (at least partially) implemented it after holding on to Hitler's citizenship laws for nearly half a century. I think Japan is still a holdout, but they have a lot of other rules based on racial purity.
Also, your rules don't work, because the US has no say in what happens to foreign citizenships. Many countries don't grant citizenship to children born abroad (for instance, children of Indian citizens in the USA will never be Indian citizens).

I don't give a rat's ass what any other country's immigration/citizenship rules are. US rules are the US rules, and should be decided by US Citizens, not by what everyone else is doing. And, the US should not have any say in what other countries decide their citizenship rules are (which is why I don't make recommendations regarding Australia's treatment of "illegal aliens," nor do I make recommendations regarding US immigration and illegal alien treatment based on other country's rules). In the eyes of the US, we can consider people citizens of some other country, even if that other country does not consider them citizens. Their rules do not determine how we see those people, just like our rules don't determine how they see those people.

quote:

quote:

And even if the parents don't want their children to be US citizens, that wouldn't matter - parents aren't allowed to renounce citizenship on behalf of their children. Only the citizen personally can do that, and only after age 18.

Minor children of parents who were not citizens at the time of the child's birth can gain citizenship when the parents gain citizenship. The parents wouldn't be "renouncing" the child's citizenship, because citizenship hasn't been determined yet.

quote:

quote:

Your rules also fail in the case of parents without any nationality at all.

Where did the parents come from? Therein lies their nationality, as far as the US should be concerned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

to make it easier and faster for foreigners to legally immigrate

I think today this needs to be just the opposite... I would limit immigration to those with needed skills... those with fiscally responsible US citizen relatives or sponsors and no one else.
Butch

There is a cap and quota system in place, and those characteristics you listed are given priority over those who do not meet at least one of those characteristics. But, why should we limit the number of immigrants who do have those characteristics? The immigration process still isn't easy, even for those with the characteristics.

Maybe what I didn't explain is that it's the process that needs to be easier and faster. Illegal entry into the US wouldn't be as desirable if the legal means were easier and faster. I know that wouldn't stop all illegal immigration, but it would help. Building a fence won't stop illegal immigration, either, but it, too, would help. Cracking down on employers that hire illegals won't stop all illegal immigration, but it would help (immensely, imo).

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Unless you are harboring illegals the penalties are as below;

First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee.

For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.

Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.

Obama has been a bit better than Bush at cracking down but there have been very few convictions that resulted in jail time.

Now make it 20 years first offense and i will guarantee you it will have an immediate affect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The US Government considers those children US Citizens, not citizens of the country of their birth. I am not going to declare what Canada, Guam, North Umbria, Westeros, or Nanda Parbat consider a child born in their country of foreign parents. I don't give a fuck what they think. I give a fuck what the US thinks, as that is my country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez


ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

The 14th Amendment doesn't bring up anything about whether the parents are only here for a visit or not. Where do you come up with that idea?

You brought up diplomat's children not being citizens.

quote:

The 14th Amendment doesn't address "visitors" does it?

The cite you brought up re: diplomats by one of the sponsors of the bill when he discussed diplomats. diplomats would be visitors because they plan on returning to their country of origin.

quote:

quote:

You still can't understand the intent of the 14th Amendment, even when it's quoted by the guy that wrote that section.

You said the opinions of those who wrote the amendment were not relevant...only the printed words on the paper were necessary to understand the document. Now, if you wish to change your mind and bring in this individuals opinion then we must also bring in the other 240 odd individuals who created this document.

quote:

Wrong, actually. Diplomats are excluded from the 14th Amendment not because they are visitors, but because they cannot be arrested or tried in the USA even if they commit a crime - they are not subject to US jurisdiction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Poor choice of countries for my example aside, the US Government will say the child has US Citizenship and Mexican Citizenship, right?

How is that different than what I said?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
First of all, your rules would put us on a par with countries such as Iraq and Kuwait. Birthright citizenship is the standard nearly anywhere in the civilized world; even Germany has finally (at least partially) implemented it after holding on to Hitler's citizenship laws for nearly half a century. I think Japan is still a holdout, but they have a lot of other rules based on racial purity.
Also, your rules don't work, because the US has no say in what happens to foreign citizenships. Many countries don't grant citizenship to children born abroad (for instance, children of Indian citizens in the USA will never be Indian citizens).

I don't give a rat's ass what any other country's immigration/citizenship rules are. US rules are the US rules, and should be decided by US Citizens, not by what everyone else is doing. And, the US should not have any say in what other countries decide their citizenship rules are (which is why I don't make recommendations regarding Australia's treatment of "illegal aliens," nor do I make recommendations regarding US immigration and illegal alien treatment based on other country's rules). In the eyes of the US, we can consider people citizens of some other country, even if that other country does not consider them citizens. Their rules do not determine how we see those people, just like our rules don't determine how they see those people.

Then why did your proposal for the rules include what should happen to a child's non-US citizenship?

quote:

quote:

quote:

And even if the parents don't want their children to be US citizens, that wouldn't matter - parents aren't allowed to renounce citizenship on behalf of their children. Only the citizen personally can do that, and only after age 18.

Minor children of parents who were not citizens at the time of the child's birth can gain citizenship when the parents gain citizenship. The parents wouldn't be "renouncing" the child's citizenship, because citizenship hasn't been determined yet.

You proposed earlier that the parents should be allowed to "choose" the child's citizenship in certain cases. That means, renouncing it.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Your rules also fail in the case of parents without any nationality at all.

Where did the parents come from? Therein lies their nationality, as far as the US should be concerned.

Statelessness is actually a very common thing. Very frequently, Germany is the culprit (there actually was a Supreme Court case about such a stateless person born in Germany). They didn't have ius soli, and as a result, a child born there will end up with neither German nor the parent's citizenship.
And you are contradicting yourself - just a few paragraphs earlier, you said that the US shouldn't dictate other country's citizenship laws, and now you are saying that the USA should tell Germany "this person is now your citizen". It's even more hypocritical because if this worked, the US would have to tell Germany "we don't want to give citizenship to people born here, but you must implement birthright citizenship because we say so".
Incidentally, also be careful about terminology - citizenship is not the same as nationality. For instance, Samoans are US nationals, but not US citizens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The US Government considers those children US Citizens, not citizens of the country of their birth. I am not going to declare what Canada, Guam, North Umbria, Westeros, or Nanda Parbat consider a child born in their country of foreign parents. I don't give a fuck what they think. I give a fuck what the US thinks, as that is my country.

Umm.... Guam is part of the USA.

quote:

Please answer the question directly. You seem to have an issue doing that. I know that puts you on record and then you could be exposed, but, come on, you can do it.

quote:

If the parents are "stateless," and aren't legal immigrants to the US, their child would not be a US Citizens (under my rules); the child would be considered to not have US Citizenship. If they are "stateless" and ARE legal immigrants to the US, their child would be a US Citizen (under my rules).

quote:

Yes, but citizenship hadn't been granted yet, so there can be no renunciation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Yes, but citizenship hadn't been granted yet, so there can be no renunciation.

Renunciation takes place when the parents cross the boarder. Citizenship begins at birth for the child.

quote:


Where did I do that? If a US Citizen has a child in Canada, that child has US Citizenship. That doesn't mean he or she doesn't have any other citizenship. I don't give a rat's ass who thinks the child has Canadian citizenship.

quote:

If I'm making the rules for US Citizenship, why would I make any determination about the kid also getting or not getting non-US Citizenship?

quote:

That's not our right to do for another country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Yes, but citizenship hadn't been granted yet, so there can be no renunciation.

Renunciation takes place when the parents cross the boarder. Citizenship begins at birth for the child.

cite please